(Oircuit Oourt, 8. D. NeuJ York.
January 4, 1888.)
Imitation seal-skin, cloakings made of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value. are dutiable under Act 1888, §l8SB.as articles composed wholly or in part of silk. and not under Rev. St. tr. S. § 2499, as articles not ,enumerated bearing similitude to one for duty.
At Law. Action to recover back customs duties. Action by Henry Hermann et at to recover excess of duties paid to William H. collector of customs duties, on cloaking materials bought and sold as silk seals. The goods are used for making ladies' outer wraps, resemble the fur of the seal as dyed for wear, and are composedof a pile consisting of 85 percent. of silk, and 15 per cent. of mohair, with cotton back. The silk is the component material of chie( , The,re is also an imitation seal known as ,"mohair seal," and ,n n, .,·Incipally of the, hai,r of the angora goat. Sf,(tph;fn" Clark, for plaintiffs., ,, , Stepb.en Walker, Dist. Atty., and McGrane Gme, for defendant.
LACOMBE, J., (orally.) The decision of the supreme court in A.rthur v. h,108 U. S. 125, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 371, would be controlling of this case, wereit not that it seems to have been conceded upon that argument, may draw any inferences from th,e text of the opinion, that so far as the particular article of cow bair, vegetable fibre, and cotton therein raferredJo,was a non-enumerated article. In the case at bar, however" that, is the very point in dispute. Under the similitude section, (2499,) the assimilated artiqle must be one non-enumerated, and that to which it should bear a similitude must be an enumerated article. Del"endant clailns that the article to which he says these goods hear a similitude is a:n enumerated article; but he finds the sole enumeration thereof in this manufiwtures, of every description, composed phrase, (section 363:) wholly or in part of the hair of the alpaca goat or other animal." Such a phra,se is in nowise more specific than is the phrase ,of the 383d clause: "All; goods, and merchandise made of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value." If the general phraseology of se()oo tion 363 is sufficiently specific to constitute an enumeration of imitation seal-skin cloakings made of goats' hair, ell. material, not expressly enumerated therein,) then the general phraseology of section 383 is sufficiently specific to constitute an enumeration of the goods now before the court, viz.: Imitation seal-skin cloakings made of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value. Therefore. as enumeratEd articles, they are not within the provisions of the similitude clause. Verdict is directed for the plaintiff.
WRIGHT V. YUENGLING.
WRIGHT 11. YUENGLING.
Oourt, S.D. Nw York. February 18,1888.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-ENGINE-FRA!oIES.
of a Patented horizontal engine-frame called for a cylinder for guiding the cross-head in combination with the cylinder head and semicircular connecting piece. Held, that an engine·frame in which there was no connecting piece between the cross-head guide and cylinder head, separate from the guide. the cross-head guide being bolted dIrectly to the cylinder head, did not infringe the patent.
The second claim ofspecificati9ns in letters patent No.. 144.818, for an im· provement in frames for horizontal engines, called for the combination of the guiding cylinder. base. and trough-like Held, that the novelty of these elements consisted 801ely in the form of the parts; and that the patent was not valid as regards sucl). parts, as it covered, not the form, but mechanical operation oo:ly. .
In Equity. On bill for injunction. These suits were brought by William Wright against David G. Yuengling,Jr., and Johnston Beggs, to restrain the infringement of letters patent granted to complainant for an improvement in engine-frames. Andrew J. Todd, for plaintiff. BenjamitnF. Lee, for defendants. WHEELER, J. These !luits are brought upon alleged infringements of letters patent No. 144,818, dated November 18, 1873, and granted to tl1e orator lor an improvement in frames for honzontal engines. The ·specification qescribes an engine-frame consisting of a cylinder head, connected with.acylindrical cross-head guide having openings giving access ·to the by a cylindrical piece having a circular opening in itS up·per side giving accessto the stuffing-box of the cylinder head; of a troughshaped piece the other end of the cros!l"head guide with a base, and raised on one side over th!3 base to furnish a support for the crankshaft, and curved downward between the sides to make room for the COnnecting-rod; and of a strengthening rib under the'cross-head guide and its connections from the base to the cylinder head. There are three claims: in which.a cylinder for guiding The first is for a horizontal the cross-head is pombinedwith the cylinder head and semicircular connecting piece, 'substantially in the manner described; the second is for the combination ina horizontal engine-frame of the guiding cylinder, base, and trough-like connection; and the third is for a horizontal engine-frame composed of the cylinder head, guidiJ;lg cylinder, connectingpiece, trough, base, and web, all combined substantially in the manner described. question is whether the defendants have taken any part of the orator's invention that is patentable, and has been actually patented to him in this patent. A corporation with which the defendant in one case is connected as an officer has made and sold to the defendant in the other. case, who has uSt:ld, &n engine with a frame consisting of a cylindrical cross-head guide, with openings in its sides giving access 'to