Tracy 0. Becker,
W. E: Willey, contra.
for the motion.·
COXE, J. On the 31st of August, 1878, David W. Sweet filed his petition in bankruptcy, and on the same day was duly adjudicated a bankrupt. On the 12th of April, 1880, he filed a petition for a discharge. Since that date no proceedings of any kind have been taken. On the 28th of January, 1879, John M. Hammond recovered a judgment in the supreme court of the state against the bankrupt. On the 11th of February thereafter this judgment, which was ex contractu, was proved against the bankrupt's estate. On the 4th of October, 1888, application was made for leave to issue execution on this judgment. The application was granted by the state court, and a levy was made. The present motion is to restrain the proceedings under this levy until the question of the bankrupt's right to a discharge is determined. The motion is opposed by the judgment creditor upon the ground that the bankrupt has been guilty of. inexcusable laches.. I am constrained to hold that this objection is well taken, and that, under the provisions of section 5106 of the Revised Statutes, there has been "unreasonable delay on the part of the bankrupt in endeavoring to obtain his discharge." .Ten years have elapsed since the adjudication, and eight and a half years since the petition fora discharge was filed. Since then the proceedings have remained in 8 profound and unbroken slumber, with no effort to revive them on the part of the bankrupt or any other person. No reason is given, and no. excuse is offered, for this extraordinary delay. After an extended examination I can find no precedent for a stay in such circumstances. Indeed, the authorities seem to be well-nigh unanimous, in all cases where the objection has been duly taken, that a much shorter delay than appears in the case at bar is fatal to thedischarge. In 1'e Harrison, 22 Fed. Rep. 528; In re Kelly, 3 Fed. Rep. 219; In re Wolfe, 10 Fed. Rep. 383; Greenwald v. Appell, 17 Fed. Rep. 140; Dingee v. Becker, 9 N. B. R. 508. In Harrison'8 Ca8e, BUpra, it was held that, "where six years have been allowed to elapse by the attorney of a bankrupt without obtaining his discharge,such negligence will be imputed to the bankrupt, and he will be peld responsible for such delay, and', on motion of his creditors, the proceedings may be dIsmissed.» It follows that the motion must be denied.
fJ. HARTFORD WOVEN WIRE MAT-
«(Jircuit,OO'Urt, IJ. Oonnecticut. December 4, 1888.)
'PATENTS FOB INVENTIONS-NOVEL'l,'V-SPRINGS FOB CAR·SEATS·
. The first clalJX,l ot letters patent No. 179,400, issued July 4, 1876, to Zenas Cobb. for an improvement in spring-seats, which describes an upholstered spring-seat, having spring sectiollS adapted to be sElparately inserted or removed from below the frame, without disturbing the upholstering, is void for want of novelty, in view Qf the familiar method of spring-seats
BALE & KILBURN MAN:UF'G CO.
WOVEN WIRE JrI. CO.
for beds, and the method of removal shown in the Kneppler patent of July 27, 1869. Itdescribes simply the use in a car-seat of the separate spring sections of the bed-seat. In Equity.
Charles How8on and Bendamin F. Thurston, for plaintiff. Charles E. Perkin8, for defendant·
. SlIIPMAN, J. This is a bill in equity upon the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 179,400, dated July 4, 1876, to Zenas Cobb, for an improvement in epting-seats. The patentee described, in his specification, his invention as follows: "My invention hasfor its object to improve the construction of npholstered spring-seats for cars and other p'urposes, and to this end it consists, first, in arranging the spring of a seat in sections, are separately adapted for application and removal from the under side of the uphoistering through the bottom of the seat·frame, for the purpose of facilitating the construction of the seat, and preventing the upholstering from being disturbed or injured when it becomes necessary to repair the springs. It also consists in the method of constructing the spring sections; and it finalIy consists in stretching a strip of webbing from end to end of a spring section, over the tops of the springs, so as to form a curved elastic support, UpOIl which the cushion or upholstering rests evenly at all points to prevent it from unequal wear." The claims of the patent are as follows: "(I) An upholstered or cushioned spring-seat, having its springs secured to the seat-frame in sections, which are separately for application and removal from the fl'ame without disturbing the substantially as described. (2) The spring sections, consisting of the divided slat, E, haVing the raised end-pieces, j, the springs, C, clamped between the two divisions of the slat, and the webbing, H, stretched over the tops of the springs from one raised end-piece to the other, substantially as described. (3) The webbing, or other strip, H, combined with the springs of a seat-slat, llnd stretched from end to end of the latter over the springs, so as to compress them, and form au arc, or curved elastic surface, upon Which the upholstering is uniformly supported. substantially as described, for the purpose specified. (4) The combination of the springs, C, webbing strip, H, clasps, D, I, and divided slat, E, substantially as described, for the purpose speCified. (5) The combination of springs, C, webbing strip, H,clasps. D. I, and divided slat, E, with the seatframe, A, and its upholstering or cushion, B, substantially as described, for the purposs specified... The first claim only is said to have been infringed, and, if valid, it is infringed by the defendant corporation, by the manufacture and sale of car-seats under letters patent. to Henry Roberts, dated December 31, 1881, May 1, and June 13, 1883. The question in the case is whether the first claim of the patent for an upholstered spring-seat, having spring sections, adapted to be separately inserted or removed from below the frame without disturbing the upholstering, one or more springs being supported in each separate slat, contains a patentable invention. Springseats for beds, composed of transverse slats, upon which were arranged coiled flprings, which supported the mattress, and which were separately removed from above the frame, were in use before the date of the invention, and are shown in letters patent to James Blythe, uated May 19,
1863, and to F. C. Hagen, of June 29, 1869. A spring-bed bottom, which consisted of coiled springs fastened to three separately removable transverse slats, and which springs helped to support a woven-wire sheet, upon which the mattress was placed, is shown in letters patent to Alvis Kneppler, dated July 27, 1869. The specification says that the springs "are fastened to the cross-rails, e, of the frame, A, as shown." The defendants insist that the drawing shows that the cross-slats were fastened to the under side of the frame, and were removable from below. It is truly said by the plaintiff that this peculiarity is not mentioned in the specification, and it also says that the drawing is consistent with the fastening of the rails upon the upper side of the frame, and indicates nothing upon the subject. It seems to me evident from the drawing that the cross-rails were fastened to the under iiiide of the bed-frame, and that the springs were removed .from below the frame. This belief is confirmed by the fact that the woven-wire sheet is firmly fastened upon the top of the frame, though capable of removal, and the natural way of introducing coiled springs into the structure would seem to be from under the frame. In view of the familiar method of constructing spring-seats for beds, which consisted of spring cross-sections, which are separately inserted, and can be removed from above the frame, and of the method shown in the Kneppler patent, it does not appear that there was patentable invention in the use of the Kneppler removable cross-slats in an upholstered car-seat. It was simply the use in a car-seat of the separate spring sections of a bed-seat, without substantial change in the manner of application, and without substantially distinct result. Indeed, if the Kneppler patent had not existed, it would seem to me somewhat questionable whether the removal of the spring sections from below instead of from above the frame could properly be considered to be an invention. Much reliance is placed by the plaintiff upon the extensive use of the Cobb seat, and the success which it hasattained; but I am not sure that this succe,ss is not attributable in part to the details of manufacture described in the claims which are .liot infringed, as well as to the fortunate transference of the separate spring bed-slats to a car-seat. The first claim, for the general principle of separate slats removable from below, without regard to the details of construction, is within the doctrine of Railroad Co. v. Truck Co., 110 U. S. 490, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220. I place no stress in the decision of the case upon the L. W. Fillebrown patent of July 10, 1866, which showed a spring car-seat having springs fastened to slats extending lengthwise of the seat, and removable from below, and which were removable as a whole from the frame, without disturbing the upholstering, because I think that the question of patentable invention is presented more clearly and decisively by the Kneppler spring-seat. The bill is dismissed.
YALE & TOWNE MANUlf'G CO. V. CORBIN.
TOWNE MANUF'G CO. 11. CORBIN
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Oonnecticut. November 27,1888.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-LoCK AND KEY.
Letters patent No. 234,002, issued November 2,1880, to Charles C. Dickerman, for an improved lock and key. the improvement consisting in the use of a sinuous parallel key-way in the rotating hub, and a corrugated fiat metal key, of equal thickness throughout, are not infringed by a lock having a. sinUous key-hole without parallelism in the sides of the slot, through the hub, and a key, grooved on each side, without corresponding projections opposite the grooves.
Letters patent No. 234,213, issued November 9. 1880, to Warren H. Taylor, for improvement in lock cylinders, the improvement consisting in the use of a key-hUb composed wholly or partly of sinuously or angularly slotted disks. are not infringed by a key-hub having an angular key-hole leading to a smooth slot.
SAME-PATENTABILITY-LoCKS AND LATCHES.
The second, third, and fourth claims of letters patent No. 180,287, issued July 25, 1876, to Henry R. Towne, for an improvement in locks and latches, consisting of a slide within the lock case, and controllable only when the door is open, and provided wJth wings to engage with either or both of the escutcheons and prevent their withdrawal from the lock case, describe a patentable in.vention.
Bill for Injunction by the Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company against P. & F. Corbin. Frederick H. Betts and J. H. Hindon Hyde, for plaintiff. Charles E. Mitchell, for defendants.
SHIPMAN, J. This is a bill in equity to restrain the defendants from the alleged infringement of three letters patent, viz., No. 180,287, dated ;July 25, 1876, to Henry R. Towne, for an improvement in locks and latches; No. 234,002, dated November 2, 1880, to Charles C. Dickerman, for an improved lock and key; and No. 234,213, dated November 9,1880, to Warren H. Taylor, forimprovements in lock cylinders. The Dickerman patent is the most important, and will be first considereil. The application for this patent was pending for a long time in the patentoffice. The claims, as presented from time to time, were rejected, and therefore the specification and claims were frequently amended. The final specification was carefully drawn, and pres.ents clearly the views which the assignee and plaintiff had of the nature of the invention. The history of the application shows with significance that the patent-office limited the scope of the patented invention to a narrow compass, and that this is especially true of the first claim. The important part of the specVication is as follows: . ":My invention relates to that class of locks in which, for economy of construction and convenience in use, the keys are made of thin sheet-metal; and it consists, partiCUlarly, of an improved construction of the key and its hub or trunnion, so as to increase the safety of the lock against picking, and SO, also, as to admit of the key being Wholly formed uf a single piece of thin sheetmetal. and yet insuring its thorough guiding and suppurt during its insertion and rotation. My invention applies particularly tu locks operated by I:laeet-