.property, as to which she is to be regarded as a feme sole. Th,edecision in Turner v. Shaw, leads logically to that conclusion. But whether it would. or would not be so held, sectIon 669 not in terms applicaple to this case, because the' covenant under consideration was not contained inajoint deed executed by Mrs. Boyeeand her husband. The result is that the effect of her covenant in the. deed of April 15, 1867, (that deed having been valid,) must be determined by the same rules that determine when other contracts of a married woman becolUe a chargeon her separate estate; and, as it has long been the rule in this state that c.ontracts of a1married woman, whether oral or written, when with reference to her separate estate or upon the credit thereof, become a charge against the same which a court of equity will enforce, no reason is perceived why the covenant made by Mrs. Boyce in the deed of 1867 may not be enforced against the separate estate which she owned at the date of t.he covenant, and eventually transmitted to her heirs. The covenant was contained in a deed conveying a part of her separate estate, and no reason can be assigned, consistent with the laws of this state, why it should not operate as a charge on the residue of her separate estate. White8idesv. Cannon, 23 Mo. 457; .K.imm v. Weippert, 46.Mo. 536; King v. Mittalberger, 50 Mo. 185; Martin v. Colburn, 88 Mo. 236, 237. The present bill, it is true, is not framed with a view of enforcing such a charge, and does not contain some of the allegations, at least, that are necessary to authorize such relief. For this reason the demurrers will be sustained. with leave to the complainant to amend if he so elects. With reference to the contention that the defendants cannot be proceeded against jointly, and that the action is barred by limitation, and that tpe defendants, if liable, must be sued at law, rather than in equity, I will say that, after a careful consideration of all those points, my conclusion is that none of them are tenable. If complainant proceeds to charge the defendants with a liability which Mrs. Boyce imposed in equity upon her separate estate by executing the covenant of special warranty, which has been broken since her death, the proceeding is properly brought in equity, and against all of the heirs jointly, and the breach of the covenant occurred so recently that the proceeding is not barred. Da'lli8 v. Smith, 75 Mo. 219.
SCHNEIDER '!1. MISSOURI GLASS
Co. et al.
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. Mi88ouri, E. D. October 81;1888.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONs-lNFRINGEMENT-PRELIMINARY lNJUNCTION'--SUS. T.AINED PATENT.
A restraining order. pending suit for infringement of a patent. will be granted where the patent has been fr.rtified by one final decision in its favor, and by nnmerous interlocutory orders of injunction granted by other courts. and there has been public acquiescence for several years in the validity of the patent.
SCHNEIDER ".MISSOURI GLASS
A bill in equity, praying for an injunction to restrain an alleged infringe· ment of a patent for an improved lamp·shade holder, contained the averment that. defendant" has imported 'lamp-shade holders adapted and intended by defendant to be used as a substantial part of the combination invented and patented by complainant. ,. Affidavits on file showed that defendant had imported certain shade-holders; that the shade-holders. so imported were the same as that exhibited to the court as an infringement of that manufactured by complainant, and which, by comparison, appeared substantially alike. Held, that the allegation as to infringement. and proof tendered in support thereof, were sufficient to warrant an injunction.
SAME-!NFRINGEMEIiT-PARTB OF COMBINATION.
It is no defense that defendant has not imported all of the parts of complainant's combination, and that the part actually imported was adapted to other uses than as a part of complain an t' s combination; defendant not having explained the uses to which it intended to put the shade-holders.
In Equity. On motion for an injunction pendente lite, reRtraining the alleged infringement of reissued patent No. 10,087, for an improvement in shade-holders, granted April 11, 1882, to Bennett B. Schneider, as assignee of Carl Votti, the original inventor. Gifford & Brow". for complainant. Ed. Ounningham, Jr., and Fbwler & Fowler. for defendants. THAYER, J. Since the first reissued patent of Carl Votti was held void by Judges BENEDICT and BLATCHFORD for want of a sufficient description of the invention. in Schneider v. Thill, 5 Ban. & A. 565, and Schneider v. Lovell. 10 Fed. Rep. 666, a second reissue has been obtained, which was 8ufltained on final hearing in the case of Schneider v. Pountney, 21 Fed. Rep. 39'9, (U. S. Circuit Court, District of New Jersey, uecided August 30,1884.) In the last-mentioned case the second reissue was assailed on the following grounds: (1) That the specifications were still defective in the respect pointed out by Judges BENEDICT and BLATCHFORD; (2) that the invention had been anticipated; (3) that there was lack of patentable novelty; and (4) that the claims had been altered in the reissue so as to cover a different invention than that claimed and covered by the original patent. As a fifth defense defendants also asserted that they had not infringed, for that they had only sold one element of the ·combination covered by the patent. It is true that the court in its decision only mentions the first and last of the above-mentioned defenses, but, considering the elaborate arguments made in support of and against the other defenses, it must be presumed that they were also consiJered, and that they were not referred to in the decision because, in the opinion of the court, they involved questions of less doubt and difficulty. It also appears from the moving papers that interlocutory injunctions have been granted on this reissue by several other circuit courts of the United States, after the service of orders to show cause why such injunctions should not issue; and that a large number of dealers throughout the country have acquiesced for several years in the validity of the reissued letters. The utility of the invention is inferentially established by the large sales that have been made, and by the large demand that appears to have arisen for the patented article. The defendant is shown to be engaged
in the jobbing trade, and, as it is said, has recently imported lamp "shade"holders" which infringe complainant's patent. The sale of the Same to retail dealer.;; in various places may entail much expensiye litigation, besides interfering with the trade and prices which complainant and purchasers from him of the patented article have already established. These are considerations which usually control the grant of an interlocutory restraining order, and they predispose me to issue such an order. It is not'expected of course, nor would it be fair to either party, to enter upon a full investigation ofthe question of "anticipation" or" patentable novelty"or "expansion of the original claims" at this stage of the case. Those are questions which should be reserved for final hearing, inll,smuch as the patent appears to be fortified by one final decision in its favor on these points, and by numerous interlocutory orders of injunction granted by other courts, as well as by public acquiescence. ·, It is sug!!,ested by defendant that both the allegation as to infringe. ment,andthe proof tendered in support thereof, is too vague to warrant an injunction. This objection must be overruled. It is averred in the bill, on information and belief, that defendant has imported lamp "shadeholders adapted and intended by defendant to be used * * * as a substantial part of the combination invented and patented" by complainant's assignor. The affidavits on file show that defendant has imported certain shade-holders, and the fact of such importation is not denied by defendant. The affidavits further show that the shade-holders so imported are the same as the "Leopold shade-holder"'exhibited to the court on the hearing of the motion, and by comparison of the' one so exhibited with those manufactured by the complainant, and also produced 3S exhibits, it is evident that they are substantially alike. With respect to the suggestion that defendant has not impol'tedall of the parts of Complainant's combination, and that the part actually imported is adapted to other uses than as a part of complainant's combination, it is sufficient to say that, if they are intended for such other uses, it was an easy mattel' for defendant to have explained the uses to which it intends to put the imported shade-holdersjand it has failed to do so. Wallace v. Holmes, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 37. Upon the whole, I conclude that it is. a proper case in which to grant a restrailling order prmding suit, and such, @.n order ie accordingly grantr.·;J, to take effect on filing a bond for 35,000. and after service of the order on the defendant.
SCHLICHT &: FIELD CO. tJ. CHICAGO SEWING-MACHINE
CHICAGO SEWING-MACHINE CO.
(Circuit CO'Uri, N. D. lllinoi8.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-NoVELTY-LETTER·FILES.
Letters patent No. 217,909, issued July'29, 1879, to Frederick W. Sml.th arid James b. Shannon, for an improvement in paper-holders, cover a novel and patentable device, and are valid. Following Bhannon v. Printing Co., 9 Fe!!. Rep. 205. Said patent is infringed by defendants' device, which is in all respects similar, except that the function of movement is transferred from the vibrating wires to the receiving wires, a merely colorable change, which any mechanic . might easily make. The testimony of one of two joint patentees, and alleged joint inventoril, thnt he was in fact the sole inventor, IS neutralized by his former oath, taken for the purpose of obtaining the patent.
SAME-WHO ENTITLED To-ESTOPPEL.
In Equity. Bill for infringement of patent. .' This bill was brought by the Schlicht & Field Company against th'e Chicago Sewing-Machine Company, Luke L. Miller, and Daniel H. ISeminger. Banning et' Banning et' Payson, ,for complainant. M. W. Robinaon and O. M. Hardy, for defendants.
BLODGETT, J. The bill in this case asks for an injunction and an counting by reason of the alleged infringement of patent No. 217;909, granted July 29, 1879, to Frederick W. Smith and James S. Shannon, for an "improvement in paper-holders," The invention covered by 'this patent is described by the patentees in their specifications as follows: , "Our invention relates to that class of paper-files or temporary bindel's adapted, by separable uniting wires, to allow of the withdrawal of any one of many papers thereon held, or the insertion of papers between those already on the file, without disturbing the order in which the others are placed. The object of our invention is to provide a file more prompt and positive in its action, less calculated to tear the papers filed.thereon, more convenient of manipulation, and adapted, in its double form, especially, to serve as a writing tablt't for the lap ordesk. ItConsists-li'irst. in a paper.holder, withduplex: parallel hinged transfer wires made from one piece; second, in a papetholder haVing the fixed wires and movable wires secured to the same connecting plate, whereby those parts lDay be separately packed and attached to· any desired base-board: third, in the structure of the puncturing wire; fourth, in .the felt or plush covering for the bottom of the base-board; fifth, in the stop to limit the movement of the hinged wires."
This patent was before this court in the case of Shannon v. PrintingCbI, reported in 9 Fed. Rep. 205, in which the validity of the patent was sustained, and nothing shown in the record in the present case induces me to, in any degree, modify or change the conclusions there arrived at. Infringement is charged in this case of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh claims of the patent, which are: