DURHAM HOUSE DRAINAGE CO. V. ARMSTRONG.
Oourt, S. D. New York. November 19,1888.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONs-INFRnmEMENT-DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
Letters patent No. 235,754, issued December 21, 1880, to Caleb W. Durham, were for an invention ofa drainage system, which supports itself independently of the building, upon pillars of masonry on which IS laid the main wastepipe, conneC,ted at the lower end of a vertical soil-pipe, to which are rigidly fastened the branches running to various parts of the building. The invention IIlso claims a combination of a cast water-closet fitting provided with r. flange for the reception of the water-closet, with the rigid branch-pipes. The defendant's apparatus consists of a main drain laid under ground, and resting upon the earth, with the soil-pipe ell:tending perpendicularly to the second story, thence at an angle of 60 degrees to the third story, thence perpen· dicularly to the roof. The soil-pipe above the angle found support from the flanges at the, ends of the branch-pipes resting on the floor in each story, but was not otherwise self-supporting. Held no infringement.
In Equity. Bill for infringement of a patent. Action by the Durham House Drainage Company, c;>fNew York, against James Armstrong for the infringement of letters patent No. 235,754, granted' to Caleb W. Durham for an improvement in drainage apparatus. Tuttle, Goodell &: Brooks and John H. Kitchen, for complainant. George Brower, for defendant.
COXE, J. The complainant's patent, No. 235,754, was granted to Caleb W. Durham, December 21, 1880, for an improvement in drainage apparatus for houses and other buildings. The central idea of the invention is a drainage system which supports itself independently of the building in which it is located. The object of the inventor was to prevent the escape of sewer gas, caused by the loosening of the joints and the breaking or disarrangement of the parts of the apparatus, occasioned by the settling, rocking, or rolling of the building, and the different parts thereof. This result is accomplished by laying the main waste-pipe in an inclined position upon pillars of masonry. To this is attached a vertical soil-pipe, which extends up through the various stories of. the building, its lower end being screwed into an elbow, which supports it directly upon the masonry. From this soil-pipe rigid branches extend connecting it with the water-dosets, the whole being supported by the vertical pipe, as a tree supports its branches. The three claims aJleged to be infringed are as follows: "(2) The combination with the drain, of the vertical soil-pipe, and a support therefo!:, independent of the building, Bubstantially as specified. (3) The combination with the rigid soil-pipe, and an independent support therefor, of the rigid branch-pipe, upon which the water-closet fitting is supported and secured, substantially as and for the purpose specified." "(5) The combination of the cast water-closet fitting prOVided with a flange for the reception of the water-closet, with a rigid branch-pipe, substantially as specified." Defendant has placed a drainage apparatus in a build:ng known as "Trinity Factory." It is charged that in so doing he has infringed. The
DURHAM HOUSE DRAINAGE CO.V. ARMSTRONG.
main drain-pipe of the structure is laid in a trench beneath the surface of the ground. There are no pillars of masonry. The pipe rests on the natural earth, in a manner well known long before the date of the patent. The vertical.soil-pipe is connected to the drain by an elbow joint which also rests upon the earth. This pipe is perpendicular until it reaches the second story above the basement when it runs at an angle of about 60 degrees to the third floor. Above the third floor the pipe is again perpendicular to the roof. At the angle the pipe is 10 feet, 9 inches in length, the deflection is 8 feet, 3 inches. Above the angle the weight of the pipe and branches is 2,547 pounds. This portion of the apparatus was constructed separately from the lower portion, being held temporarily in position by timbers and ropes. When completed it found ample support from the flanges at the .ends of the branch-pipes resting upon the floor in each story. Had it been independent of the · building, it would have fallen when the temporary supports were removed. 'That the slanting pipe which connects the upper with the lower sections -is incapable alone of upholding the weight above it was demonstrated by .a practical experiment. A similar pipe was placed at the same angle, .and it was found that it broke at the joint with less than one-half the weight in question. It is true this experiment was pane,-such exp,eriments usually are,-but this presents no excuse for arbitrarily rejecting the evidence, especially as it is not traversed or imp(lached. It was also proved that the branches from the soil-pipe were tightly packed .around with brick, slate, and asphalt,and that their flanges rested on the floor, and served to hold the main structure in position. In fact it seems to be clearly established that the drainage system of the "Trinity Factory" is not independent of the building, but a part of it, and dependent upon it for support. If the building settles or rocks, the 'age system must settle and rock with it. One of the witnesses, testifying upon this branch of the controversy, aptly says: "In the event of the building settling. the whole structure would go with the building, because the apparatus receiving its support from each of the floors, and there being DO solid foundation under the drain-pipe of masonry, the earth would naturally give way with the pipe at thebottolll. Ol' cause suffi·cient spring in the pipe to h·t the whole structure dawn together·. It has to .,go down, or something breaks." . The complainant's patent is intended to protect various combinations constituting his system of house drainage. This system the defendant h,as not used. A construction of the claims sufficiently brOl,\d to cover t1)e structure of the "Trinity Factory" would also cover any system of drainage where a vertical iron soil-pipe is used connecting with the drain . beneath tht3 surface of the earth. There is no infringement of the fifth -claim unless it is given a construction so broad that it must fall for lack -orinvention. . The bill must be .
THE PHILIP SINNOTT. MOORE
V. THE MARY POWELL.
MARY POWELL STEAM-BoAT CO. 'II. THE PHILIP SINNOTT
(Oireuit Oourt, S. D. New York.
COLLISION-BETWEEN STEAMER AND VESSEL AT PIER-INEVITABLE AOCIDENT.
On the so11th side ofa pier. projecting from the shore-line 512 feet into North river, lay the barge S., her bow towards the shore, and her stern projecting from 10 to 20 feet beyond the end of the pier. when she was struck by an up-steamer, which had swung out from a 400-foot pier, 600 feet below. Held, that though wind and tide were setting in towards the upper pier, and the pilot. on discovering that his swing-off was not sufficient to avoid collision. used due diligence to stop the steamer. it was not an inevitable accident; the pilot being familiar with the set of the tides there. and there being abundant space for passage behind the stern of the barge. The mere fact that a barge lies with her stern projecting from 10 to 20 feet beyond the end of a 512-foot pier. at which she is berthed in North river. does not constitute contributory negligence, in case of a collision by a steamer in attempting to pass up the river, after swinging off from a 400-foot pier 600 feet below; there;being no other obstruction to free passage.
In Admiralty. Cross-libels for On appeal from district court, 31 Fed. Rep. 622. Cross-libels for damages by collision by Harrison B. Moore and others, owners of the barge Philip Sinnott, and by the Mary Powell Steam-Boat Company, owners of the steam-boat Mary Powell. From decrees against the Mary Powell her owners appeal. James Parker, for the Mary Powell et ale John A. Deady, for Moore et ale LACOMBE,J. On July 7, 1886, the barge Philip Sinnott lay along the south side of pier foot of Twenty-Ifourth street, North river, her bow towards shore, and herstern projecting into the river beyond the end of the pier. The extent of this projection is in dispute; the appellants claiming that it was about 16 feet, and the appellees insisting that it did not exceed 9 or 10 feet. In either case it was less than the width of another barge or lighter which at the same time lay across the end of the pier, with her bows pointing down the river. The width of this other barge--theAnderson-wns 23 feet, and it seems probable, from the evidence, that the Sinnott's stern did not project more than half that dispro- ' tance beyond the end of the pier. This Twenty-Fourth street jects 512 feet from the line of the bulk-head or shore-line. Tw'o hundred feet or more below it lies the northerly rack of the Pavonia ferry. Still further down is the pier, foot of Twenty-Second street, distant nearly 600 feet from the Twenty-Fourth street pier. It projects from the bulkhead or shore-line only 400 feet. About 3:30 P. M. the steam-boat Mary