PRESTON tI. MANARD.
as my own observation goes, I have never seen radiators ornamented in the manner shown in this patent, or by figures of any kind, either embossed, depressed, or painted thereon. Hence I am unahle to say that this design is not wholly new and original with this patentee. As to the point that this patent is void because it does not describe the kind of figures, I can only say that I,"at present, am of opinion that if this patentee was the first to invent or produce an ornamented radiator, that is, the first to design a radiator with an upper or lower rectangular space ornamented by figures of any kind upon it, then he may be entitled to a patent for such design. It may not have required a very high order of genius or inventive talent to have conceived and produced such a de7 sign, but if it was new, if it originated with him, then I cannot on demurrer say his patent is invalid. I have nothing at present before me from which I can say that it did not require study, thought, and inventive talent to produce this design. The case can be far more satisfactorily and safely, for the rights of all parties, disposed of upon proof as to the state of the art. The demurrer is therefore overruled.
PRESTON '11. MANARD
((Jzrcuit (Jourt, N. D.
PATENTS FOR· lNVENTIONS-NovFJ.Ty-LAWN SPRINKLERS-RoSE-CARRIAGE.
The first. claim of letters patent No. 183,188, issued to J. W McGaffey. for an "improvement in fountain hose-carriages. " which is for the combination of a bose-reel mounted on a truck provided with a foot or brace, by means of which the truck may be set or sustained in a vertical position, so that gle truck-shaft may, when thus Bet in an uprig4tposition, act as a fountain standard, is void for want of n o v e l t y . · ,
SAME-CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM-NoZZLE HOLDER.
The clasp or nozzle holder. in combination with the truck and the reel,. which is the subject of the second claim of the patent. must be limited, ,Sll¢h a clasp as is there shown, the proof showing that the idea of the device to the nozzle to the standard of a lawn sprinkler was not new to the inventor. ' . The .fourth claim of the patent. which is for the combination of a B4t,screw, by which the hose-reel is locked or made rigid on the spindle or axle. and the nozzle Clasp, is not infringed by a similar machLne whose locking device is a pawl and rachet, and not a set-screw. '
In Equity. Bill for an inj unction and damages for an ment of patent. The bill was filed by Everett B. Preston againstAlpheus B. and James W. Manard. Mwnday Evarts, for complainant. C. M. Brazee, for defendants. BLODGETT, .J. leged This is a bill for an injunctioI,l. and damages for an by defendants ofpatentNo.183,188, issued to J.,W.
I The delay in publishing this opinion was occasioned by failure to receive it at the time of its rendition. ' , . .,,;' , . ",
McGaffey, for 'an "iinprovementin fountain hose-carriages," and duly assigned to the complainant. It is charged in the bill that the defendant infringes the first, second, and fourth claims of the patent. These claims are as follows: "(1) A hose-reel mounted on a carriage, which is prOVided with a foot or brace. by means of which it may be sustained in an upright vertical position, whereby the device becomes capable of use both as a hosp-carriage and as a fountain standard, substant!ally as specified. (2) The combination with a hose-reel, mounted upon a suitable standard or frame-work, of a clasp or clasps upon the reel, or standard, or both, for holding the hose or nozzle so that the apparatus may be used as a lawn sprinkler, substantially as described. (3) The hose-reel, provided with a set-screw for locking- it from turning, and With a clasp or clasps for holding the nozzle, substantially as set forth." The defendants make and use a hose-reel constructed by a truck with two shafts or standarrls,with a hosll-reel working between the two standards, or truck-shafts, as they may perhnps be more properly called. The defense is (1) want of novelty; and (2) that defendants do not infringe. The first claim of this patent, it will be seen, is for the combination of a hose-reel mounted on a truck provided with a foot or brace, by means of which the truck may be set or sustained in a vertical position, so that the single truck-shaft may, when thus set in an upright position, act as a fountain standard. This combination seems to me to have been fully anticipated in the reference from Knight's Mechanical Dictionary, vol. 2, p. 1132, under the title of" Hose-Reel," where a truck hr carriage is shown which seems tQ me the same in principle and mode of operation as that shown in the patent. It is true the application or use of the combined truck and reel ofa fountain standard is not suggested in this reference, but it is clear that no change 'in the mechanical structure is needed to adapt it to this use, unless it be some mode of fastening the hose-nozzle to the standard, an.ddevices for this purpose are shown in the older art; as, for instance, in.the hose-holder of Smith, described in his patent No. 137,802, dated April 15, 1873; the patent of Ryder of November 11, 1873, No. 144,415j and other devices of an analogous character to this, for keeping the hose ptn\lzzle in. position, and which might have been adopted in this case. The clasp or nozzle holder, in combination with the truck and the reel, is the subject of the second claim, and must be limited to such a clasp lis is there shown, because the proof shows that the idea of a device to fasten the nozzle to the standard of a lawn sprinkler was not new to this inventor. Smith, Ryder, and Copping had shown such devices before he entered the field, and therefore he Ulust be limited to his specific device or clasp; and an inspection of the nozzle holder of the defendant is to show that, while it performs the same function as that of the complai'nant's \nozzle holder, it is a different mechanical contrivance; The fourth'claim is for the combination of a set-screw, by which the hosEl-reel is locked or made rigid on the spindle or axle, and the nozzle clasp. It is sufficient to say, while the defendant's machine has a lock-
PRESTON ". MANARD.
ing device t it is a pawl and ratchet, and not a set-screw, and does not, complainant's combination. The only peculiar therefore, infringe featnre in the complainant's machine, which is not expressly shown in the exhibit from Knight's Mechanical Dictionary,'lsin regard to the construction of the reet The complainant says in his specification: "The feE'lbeing at a considerable height from theground,renders it possible to employ a reel of sufficient diameter so that the wa.ter will freely flow through the portion of the hose wound thereon, by means of which only so much of the hose need be unwound from the reel as is it is wanted for operation;" but the needed to place the sprinkler exact size required for a reel in order to secure So. flowing of the water through the hose, when wound thereon, is not ghren; nor does the inventor pretend that he was the first to discover the principle or fact that water would flow through a hose when wound ana reel of a certain ,qiameter.. It is obvious, I think, that the flowing of water through iii hose while wound upon a reel depends, not only upon the S\.ze of the reel, but to some extElnt on the care and rigidity or tightness .with which it is wound, and the number of coils laid upon each other. And from the way in which McGafI!:lY refers to this feature in his· tion, that he considered it a Ulere form of construction which could be adopted inthe arrangement of the parts of his machine, if the constructor saw fit to do so; that is, his shaft and trucks were so arranged that he could uSe a large reel if it was desirable to do so. . It is not an essential element of his patent, and does not form the subject of any claim. I of therefore come to the conclusion that the first claim is void for novelty, and that the defendants do not infringe the second and fourth claims. The defendants' machine, in fact, more nearly resembles, in mj;lchanicalstructure and combination of parts, the hose-reel described ,in · Knight's Dictionary; but it is obvious that the differences between ..the complainant's' and defendants' machines are more apparent than real. · The complainant's machine has only a single truck-shaft. with the reel ·attached to it by a spindle, while defendants' machine has two truckshafts, and the reel revolves between them on an axle attached to each shaft. The complainant's foot or brace makes with the wheels of his truck a tripod, which su pports the shaft as a standard for a lawn .sprinkler; the defendants' shafts, being set on brackets attached to the axle of the truck, make t When !let on end, a. four-footed pedestal and two standards fora lawn sprinkler, either of which may of course be used as desired. The bill is therefore dismissed for want of equity.
et al, v.
Circuit OQurt, S. D. NeIJJ York.
October 15, 1888.)
A claim in 'aeffilralty, which would be barred at law by the statute tations, is barred, by analogy, on the ground of laches.
In Admiralty. On appeal from district court. Libel by Thomas J. Southard and others against William Brady on , the charter ofthe bark rr. Jeffrey Southard. Decree forrespondent, and libelants appeal. Findings oj Fact. (1) On or about the 15th day of November, 1875, a charter was made of the bark T. Jeffrey Southard by the owners, the libelants and appellants herein, t6 the respondent and appellee. It was negotiated by J. H. Beattie, the owners' agent, and fur a voyage from Galveston. Tex;, to Liverpool, or other specified port on the Continent. (2) That the firm of M. Quin & Co., of Galveston, Tex., were the agents of the respondent at Galveston, and that said firm attended to all busi. ness of the respondent in connection with said charter and said loading, , and were duly authorized by the respondent for that purpose; and that during said time the respondent was not in Galve8ton, and had no personal knowledge of what was done. (3) That on March 29, 1876, the , bark sailed from Gahreston. (4) That the claim of the libelants accrued, if at all, on or prior to said day of sailing. (5) That this action was begun by service of the citation on October 23, 1883. (6) That Mr. Thomas, one of the said firm of M. Quin & Co., died in 1879 or 1880. (7) The respondent has been a resident of New York since 1874, and at all times had an office in New York city, where he could be found except during occasional absences, none of which exceeded two and a half months. He also had a residence in New York city or Brooklyn all the time. where he could also have been found except during said absences. (8) The libelants have been guilty of laches. Y. Henry Dewey, for appellants. - Oeo. B. Adams, for appellee·
. stating theftndings as above.) The -transactions out of whicfithe libela11ts contend that their cause of action arose were completed more than six years before the action was begun. Statutes of limitations are no longer received in an unfavorable light, as an unjust and discreditable defense, but should receive such support from courts of justice as would make them what they were intended emphatically to be-statutes of repose. Bell v. Morrisoil, 1 Pet. 360. They are now generally regarded with favor, as being in the interest of justice, by compelling parties to bring their actions promptly, so that debtors shall not be obliged to take care forever of their acquittances, or alleged debtors of the evidence which may enable them to defeat the claims advanced them. It is true that there is no statute of limitations in admi-