WHITE V. S. B:ARRIS & SONS MANUP'G CO.
length above the upper end of the spindle, so that the combination of Pearl's second claim appears to be present, of the bobbin with two chambers, the intermediate adhesive bearing, and the blade of the spindle made shorter than the bobbin. These bobbins are represented by the exhibits H, II J, and M, and are said to have been used with a spindle substantially like exhibit G. Upan the best consideration I have been able to give to the contradictory evidence in respect to the Wauregan bobbin, I am of opinion that Atwood did ream out the top of his bobbins before the date of Pearl's invention. I agree with the plaintiffs' counsel that this fact only affects the third claim, and does not prevent a recovery for infringing the second. n may eventually have a bearing on the taxation of costs. Interlocutory decree for the complainants.
WHITE 'D. S.
(Circuit O()1llrt, D. Massachusetts. July 19, 1880.)
In Equity. Myers rJ; Warner. for complainant. Thos. H. Dodge, for defendants. LOWELL, C. J. The complainant's patent, No. 220,126, is recent, and has not been litigated, and the affidavits give us to understand that its validity is seriously contested. This is reason enough for not granting a preliminary injunction. It is said that the defendants are estopped by having accepted a license from the complainant. But the only license asked for or taken was to sell certain goods which the defendants had on hand when the patent was obtained, which seems to be rather in the nature of a compromise to save trouble. than a deliberate acknowledgment of the validity of the patent. But, if the defendants are estopped to dispute the patent, there is a serious doubt of the infringement. The , v.3,no.3-11 .
articles complained of are made nnder patent No. 221,721, which Judge Blatchford has lately said, in refusing a similar motion, do not, at first sight, appear to infringe the patent of the complainant. White v. N<Y!Jes, 2 FED. REP. 782. ;Preliminary injunction refused.
THE SHIP ;PRIDE OF THE OCEAN,
(DUtria Gour', E. .D. New Y""k.
« Showdy, for intervenors. BENEDIOT, D. J. This cause comes before the court upon exceptions to a libel, filed under the following circumstances: On the tenth day of October, 1879, the ship Pride of the Ocean was proceeded against in this court by the owners of the schooner George W. Andrews, to recover the damages caused to vessel by a collisio'n with ,the ship Pride of the Ocean, which occurred on the high seas on the third day of August, 1879. The said action proceeded to a trial, and resulted in a decree condemning the Pride of the Ocean for the damages aforesaid. Subsequently to' such interlocutory decree the ship was sold by order of the court as perishable, and the proceeds were brought into the register. The net proceeds of such sale amount to the sum of about $5.500. while the
Sidney Ohubb, for libellants. W. W. Goodrich, E. L. Owen and Hill, Wing