extracted from the skins, and that, therefore, they constitute an addition to and not a modification of the process described in the Rogers patent. I think,however, that, at least for the purpose ofthis motioI}, I must make a much narrower construction of the patent than that for which the complainant contends. 'It is not denied that the identical process described in the Rogers patent has been many years in use in extracting glue from glue stock other than salted fish skins. The invention. therefore,consists only in applying'this proce1:lS to a material to which it was not befera kilown or supposed to be applicable. Such an invention or discovery could not be held any patentable novelty if that questionwerE! now open to thesepal'ties. Pennsylvania Locomotive En:gifl;6'SajetyTruck (h., 110 D.' S. 490,4 Sup. Ct. 220; Spill v. (JeUvJoid Manufg 00., 22 BIatchf. 441, 21 Fed. Rep. 631, and 22 Fed. Rep. 94. And although, by 'vi1ltueof the decree above referred to, I tissume for this dase the validity .0£ the patent, still I think, in view of theistate,oftheart, it 'must be held to be valid only for the identical thing discovered or invElDtedbythepatentee; that,iato say, the application of the process of washing an cool water, extracting the gelatine by boiling, and then straining and evaporating, as applied to salted fish skins. " U:Q.derthis interpretation of the patent, the' process of cleaning in solutions Of bisulphite of:soda arid sal-soda, and of boiling in a solution· of borax, followed by straining and evaporating,. is not an infriIl:gement. , .0::': ' It may be that on final hearing a broader construction than that which I have indicated will be giveo'tQ butl entertain so JP.uch doubt on the question whether such broader construction is justifiable that I am not prepared to injunction.
CLARK tl. WILSON.
((Jirouit Oourt. 8. D. NeuJ
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-NoISELESS METALLIC SHUTTERS.
, The first claim of patient No. 187,595, granted to Alexander Olark on April whereby the noise In raising or lowering. such shutters is deadened or prevented by the application of a soft or pliant material, such as leather, webbing, etc., to the shutters, in the width. so as to coil' up thel'ewith, an4 form a cushion between the several coils, is infringed by the shutters constructed' under the patent granted AprilS, 1884, to James G. Wilson, for an improvement in corrugated shutters. in 'which pieces of"leather are placed upon the shutters hi longitudinallines, as iii theClark-4nvention, to deaden the sound, and fastened by rivets. which protect the edges of the shutters,. and the stems of which through the'shutters, and through the leather stripS, which are made to fit in ' : the hollow part of the corrUgations.
8, 1873, for an improvElJllent, In .c9rrugated
Todd} for complainant.
CLARK V. WIlSON.
COXE, J. On the eighth of April, 1873, letters patent No. 137,595 were granted to the compla,inant Jor an improvement in corrugated me.tallic shutters. The inventicm consists in applying a soft or pliant rnaterial.,.such as leather, webbing, etc.· to the shutters, in the width, so as to coiLup therewith and form a cushion between the several coils; the object being to deaden or prevent noise in raising or lowering the shutters. The first claim, which alone is in controversy', is in these words: "(I) The, application, to corrugated metal revolving shutters, of one or more strips ot)engths of soft and .pliant material, disposed in such manner as to act as a cusbion between thll coils of the shutter, substantially as and for the purpose described."
In J this a motion f()r a prelilninary injunction, as that dedecided thai', the patent in suit covers the scribed in an English patent'gt'fl,nted to the complainant, May 2, 1872; and that, pursuant to the provisions of section 4887 of the Revised Statutes, it expired at the same time with the English patent, to-wit, May 2, 1886. A decree for an injunction is therefore out of the question. The references introduced by the defendant neither anticipate the patinvalida..te it for JAck: of novelty and invention. Furthermore, they do not operate"to'limit, in any marked degroorthe claim' iaiquestion, which should be liberally construed in view of the fact that the .complainant was the first to enter this particular field of invention. The question of infringement alone remains to be considered. 'fhe defendant, who, prior to 1876,was in the employ of the complainant, obtained a patent dated April 3, 1884, for an improvement in corrugated metal rolling shutters. The object of the defendant, as stated in the specification, is twofold: F'ir8t,to strengthen and protect those parts of the shutter whidh are most liable to wear; and, second, to deaden the noise which is usually caused by operating the same. The complainant insists, that shutters constructed ·after the formula of this patent infringe the claim in question. The defendant uses a rivet with a large head or shield designed,to strengthen and protect the edge of the shutter. The eStem rivet runs through the shutter, and through a thick piece of leather made to fit in the hollow part of the corrugation, the other head being riveted against a metal washer on the top of,' the leather. These piecesofleather are placed upon the shutter in longitudinal lines, as in .complainant's structure. leather acts asa cushion between the coils, and, unquestionably has a tendency to deaden the noise when :the shutter is. That it is "Z;lOiseless" is one oithe merits claimed for It by the defendant. It is true that the infringing cushions are not in strips or lengths; they .are not continuous; but, nevertheless, they perform the same functions , in substantially the same way. The similarity between the two structures ·can, perhaps, be best illustrated by placing them in juxtaposition. I!'igs. 1, 2, and 3 represent edge views of the manner in which the noise.-dead-
ening material has been applied by the pateI1tee. "li'igs., 4 ,and 5 represent the defendant's device.
j · .'
The conclusion cannot be resisted that the defendant has seized upon the idea 8uggestedby the complliinant, and seeks'toavoid the charge of infringement"by'an ingenious arrangement, which, though differing in substantially,all'of the advantages and performs all of the functions of the patented structure. Under the broad construction to which the claim is entitled, he should not be permitted to do this. If the leather is cut away from the erowIi of the corrugations as shown in Fig. 2, the result will be almost the exact counterpart cif the defendant's device. He does not use as much of the noise-deadening material as the complainant,'andhe does not apply it in precisely. 'the same manner, but. he accomplishes the same result, and by equivalent means. ,It follows that, as to the first claim, thecomplainallt is entitled to a decree fONtn accouiiting to tliedate: of the expitation of the patent, as aforesaid, with costs. '
BoYLAN '11. THE INTERNATIONAL.
001111", S. D. Nf//D York. March 25, 1887·. 1.
MARITIMBLIENB-SEAM.AN'S WAGBS-CJURTBRBR IN POSSESSION.
A seaman's lien on the ship for his wages does not depend upon contract, but is fixea by the law as an incident to his lawful employment on board. He has the same .lien, therefore, when employed by a known charterer, who runs the vessel on his()wuaccount, as when employed by the ()wner, th()ugh the latter is not pers.onallyliable when the vessel is run by the charterer.
SOO-CA8E STATED-WAIVING LIEN-VOID CONTRACTS.
The respondent havingcharteted his vessel to a charterer for a Axed term, with the nght to nominate the captain and engineer, who were to be paid by the charterer, named the libelant as engineer; aM having explained to him fldlythe provisions of the charter, introduced him to the charterer, by whom he was employed. No express reference was made to the question of. lien, though the libelant UpderlitOOd that th.e charterer was to be his paymaster. Held, (1) tb.at the seaman hl'd. a lien for his wages, there being no. implied effect contract,ren,ouncing it; and, 8emble, (2) that an express contract worildbe held void in admiralty unless there were some corresponding ben· eilt to. the seaman to 11;,
In Admiralty. Hyland kZabriskie, ,for libelant. <Jharles Murray, for claimll,ut. BROWN, J. The libelant sues to recover 838, a balance. of wages claimed oy him for services as engineer of the steam-lighter International, from May to November, 1883. The lighter during this time was run by one Ballou, under a charter to him executed by the owner, who, by written contract, had fhe·right to name the engineer and captain; hut all wages were to be paid by the charterer, who to have possession, and run the boat on l:\is own account. The owner nominated ,the libelant as engineer, andcareflillly read and explained to him the provisionli of the charter, and thereupon introduced him to Ballou, by whom the libelant was employed. After six months, the charterer's business not being successful, the boat was surrendered to the owner, lE'aving some bills, including the above balanoe due to the engineer, unpaid. There were various other subsequent facts and circumstances, which I do not consider of material importance; since, upon the whole, it is sufficiently clear that :neither the libelant nor the owner,intended to waive or change their former legal rights or obligations. The only. question is whether, under such circumstancesj the engineer has a lien upon the vessel for his wages. Had this 'been a question of materials or supplies furnished ,by a material·man having knowledge of the terms of the charter, no lien upon ihe vessel woUld here have been sustained, unles.s.the supplies were furnished in a po'rt of distress, and were necessa,ry to enable the vessel to reach her owners, i. e. ,unless the supplies \Vere necessary to the ship