c.urrent of high tension in the main circuit, and reduces it to a continuous cnrrent of low tension in the secondary circuit. This incomplete review of the prior state of the art would seem to show that at the date of the article in Engineering there was no invention in a single eonverter which transferred energy from high to low potential, as distinguished from a conversion from low to high. It seems to have been as!mmed in priorpatents, a matter of common knowledge, that, by theJaws governing the inductorium, or converter, the electric force transferred could be eithe.r of the same potential or of greater or less, as might be desired. It required something further, something that might be called invention, to solve the problem of a successful system for electric distribution. Gaulard and Gibbs undoubtedly believed that in the ll:rticle in Engineering they unfolded to the world a descri ption of a,sucpessful system. So far as their system was a new invention, and is found incorporated in the patent in suit, they are entitled to be pro. But they are expreSSly limited by their disclaimer to the series system, and therefore the defendants, who use the multiple-arc system, do not infringe. Without entering further into the defenses raised, I am satisfied, for the reasons given, that the bill should be dismissed.
THOMSON.HOUSTON ELECTRIC Co. '11. CITIZENS' ELECTRIC LIGHT Co.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Massachusetts. August 14,1888.)
PATENTS FOR lNVENTIONs-ANTICIPATION-REGULATOTIS FOR DYNAMO MACHINES.
Lett'ers patent :No. 238,315. granted March 1,1881, to Elihu Thomson and Edwin J. Bouston. for a regulator for dynamo machines. controlling automatically the strength of the electric current by adjusting the commutator so 8ato keep the current constant, are not anticipated by letters patent No. 223,659, granted to the same persons for an automatic adjuster for commutator brushes on machines. whereby an adaptation to varia· tions of circuit reSIstance is secured by adjusting the commutator so as to keep the current at its maximum value.
In Equity. B. F. Thurston and Livermore &: Fish, for complainant. Chauncey Smith, Edwin H. Brown, and E. W. Burdett, for defendants.
COLT, J. This suit is brought for the infringement of letters patent No. 238,315, granted Elihu Thomson and Edwin J. Houston, March 1, 1881, for improvements in current regulators for dynamo-electric machines. The specification says: "The object of our invention is to provide improved means for controlling automatically the strength of an electric current flowing over a circuit composed of a dynamo-electric machine and one or more electric lamps, or other appliances. through which the current passes, and to obtain said control with. out the introduction of resistances as such, and without varying the speed or field of the dynamo-electric machine, and at the same time, if desired, to util. ize the reaction pl'inciple for the magnetization of said dynamo-electric machine, or, in other words, to cause the current generated to pass through
THOMSON-HOUSTON ELECTRlC CO. V. CITIZENS' EI,ECTRIC LIGHT CO.
field-magnet coils. We accomplish these results at the same time that the power expended to drive the dynamo-electric machine varies directly in accordance with the changed resistance of its circuit, being less as the resistance is less, and greater as the resistance is greater. * * * In the improved system of operation provided by our present invention, we possess the ability to cut out lamp after lamp from circuit, and yet maintain a uniform current strength in the remaining lamps, and economy of motive power proportional to the diminished resistance, while the normal light-giving power of each lamp not cut out is maintained, and an absence of heating or necessity for any other adjustments than those at the commutator of the machine obviated. These adjustments are preferably made automatic, for we find that with the commutator used by us, as herein specified, a pl'Oper adjustment of the commutator being effected when a certain resistance is in circuit, a similar adjustment will, when the resistance is changed, give the same current. In our systt'm we have employed a dynamo-electric machine in which the commutator is constructed of three insulated segments of a ring connected to three armature-coils. The collecting-brushes applied to said cummutator are supported so as to be movable around the commutator, without changing the relative positions of the two collectors. This movement of the collectingbrushes is well known in the art. * * * We find in practice, moreover. that we obtain with this automatic regulation of the current strength an independence of speed variations in the machine. It being only necessary to so adJust the speed of running that when the speed is at Its lowest the machIne shall yet be sufficient in power to maintain the nnmber of lights placed in its circuit. We are therefore able to operate successfully under conditions of motive power variations that have hitherto been recognized as fatal to steadiness of light obtained·. In United States patent No. 223.659, January 20, 1880, before referred to, we have described a means of automatically adjusting the commutator collectors of dynamo-electric machines, which method is adaptable to the present case of current regulation. '" '" '" Our present method of operating, therefore. so far as ·it relates to antomatic regulation, is based upon the same principles of operation as our preVious invention; and it consists in an improved construCtion and mode of use of the apparatus employed in patent No. 223,659. We claim: (1) In a current regulator for a dynamo-electric machine. the combination of a device responding to changes in the main or generated current, a shIfting commutatOl' for said machine, and mechanism controlled by said responsi ve device to shift the commutator to those positions where the current takl'n up by said commntatorshall be constant. (2) In a current regulator for a dynamo-electric machine. an electro-magnetic device acted upon by variations in the main or generated ·current, an adjustable or shIfting commutator for the machine, and mechanism controlled by said electro-magnetic device to adjust the commutator to those positions where the main or generated current taken up by said commutator shall be constant," The main defense in this case is that the prior patent No. 223,659, issued to these complainants, is an anticipation of the patent in suit. Upon careful examination of the two patents. in connection with the testimony of experts and the able arguments of counsel, I cannot agree with the position taken by the defendants. The object of the two patents, as disclosed by their titles. is different. The patent in suit is for a current regulator for dynamo machines; the earlier patent is for an tomatic adjuster for commutator brushes on magneto-electric machines. Current regulation, or "to provide improved means for controlling auto;natically the strength of the electric current," is the object of the patent
in suit; while the object of the prior patent was the construction of an automatic adjuster for commutator brushes, "whereby an automatic adaptation to variations of circuit resistance is secured, and the burning and destructive effects of false adjustments obviated." The design of the' present patent is to adjust the Cbmnlutator to those positions which shall keep the current constant; the design of the prior patent was to adjust the commutator so as to keep the current at its maximum value; or, in other words, to adjust. the brushes so that their contacts with the commutator segments should be at the neutral points, by which means the difficulty from 'sparking would be reduced to a minimum. It is true that the means employed in both patents to accomplish these different results bear a <;:108e relation to each other. The patentees declare that the earli!lrmethod described is adaptable to the present case of current regulation, but they also say that their present method consists in an improved construction and mode of use of the apparatus employed in the prior To construct an automatic adjuster which shall avoid sparking or leakage by bringing the brushes in contact with the commutator-segments lit the neutralline, or the points ofthe maximum difference of potelltial between,the degments, and therefore of maximum current, may be an important invention, but it is certainly quite a different invention to adjust the brushes of the commutator to positions which shall keep the current constant, independently of the question whether the brushes touch the neutral points, or whether sparkingis avoided. '.' .' It is said that the present invention is shown in Figs. 1 or 2 of the earlier patent. The testimony of defendants' experts seems to find the invention described in Fig.i, while the learned senior counsel for defendantS appears to reject this contention, and turns to Fig. 2 as an anticipation of the patent ins,uit.,. I dooot find in Fig. 2 of the earlier patent the cq:robiriation of which forms the subject-matter of , the claimsoLthe patent nowuuder consideration. I do not find that . which constitutes the important thing in the present invention, namely, the responsive device responding to changes in the main or generated .current. In. respect to Fig. 1, the most that can be said is that it imperfeotly d81icribes that which was perfected in the subsequent patent DQW in controversy It seems to me, in other words, that the language of the specification is strictly accurate where it declares that the present invention" consists in an improved construction and mode of use of the apparatus in patent No. 223,659." Upon the subject of infringement I have no doubt. The question is not as to the form of dynamo the defendants may use, or whether their may be adjusted by hand. to avoid sparking, but the question is whether they use the complainants' invention by the employment of substantially the same means to accomplish the same result, namely, the regulation of the current by means of a device responding to changes in the'wain or generated current, and this the complainants have shown. Let decree be entered as prayed for in the bill. Decree for complainants.
SCOTIA. THE SCOTIA. SAME.
et al. v.
(Di8trict Oourt, 8. D. Ne'IiJ York. August 8, 1888.)
MARITIME LIENS-SUPPLIES-BRITISH VESSEL-LAW OIl' THE FLAG.
The tacit lien for suppliesfuroished to foreign vessels is created. where it exists at all. by the maritime law, not by the master's will. It depends wholly on the law of the place. oot of the vessel's flag. The general maritime law gives such liens to material·men for necessaries furnished to a foreign vessel on the order of the niaster. Though the English law gives no such lien, this does not affect the appli· cation of the general maritime law to British vessels in other countries, nor' abridge the authority of British masters to obtain necessary supplies by sim· pIe contract in foreign ports where the law creates a lien, nor prevent such lien from attaching. Many English cases recognizethtl validity of such for· elgn liens. Sembi, by the continental maritime law l;ompliance with the fa loci contractu8 is sufficient. Supply·men in New York and Hayti, who there furnish necessaries toa British ship on the master's order and on the credit of, the ship, have mario time liens therefor which take precedence of prior mortgages.
SAME-ENGLISH LAW-MASTER'S Al:THORITy-LEX LOCI CONTRACTUS.
In Admiralty. Libel for supplies. In the first above libel the sum of $581.63 was claimed for necessary supplies furnished in December, 1886, at the port Of New York, to the steam-ship Scotia, of Glasgow, Scotland. In the second case the claim is for similar advances made on account of the vessel at Hayti. Upon the arrest of the vessel ill these suits, the mortgagees, under a mortgage made prior to the date of the supplies, intervened as claimants, and resisted the alleged liens on the ground that the master had no authority to create thein; that the limits of his authority in the business of the ship are determined by the law of the flag, that is, in this case, by the law of Great Britain, and that by that law the master had no power to create liens on the ship, except by bottomry; and that consequeritly in these cases no maritime Heils existed. It was admitted that, except for that objection, and according to our own law, and the law of Hayti, which is similar to that of France, a maritime lien would have arisen in each case. ' Wing, Shoudy« Putnam, for libelant Mills, E. E. Fitzgerald, for libelants Tweedy et al. George A. Black, for claimants. BROWN, J. The result of ·the long controversy in England between the courts of common law and the courts of admiralty was to curtail the latter of their jurisdiction toa large degree. Since then the time liens recognized in England have been comparatively few; and