BOY!>". JANESVILLE HAY TOOL CO.
",kill waeinvolved and exercised. lam 'further of the opinion that said Rodebaugh patent was anticipated by the patent of ElY,-No.163,309,-dated May 18, 1875. 2. If the Rodebaugh patent could be held valid, it would, in view of the action of the department, as shown .by the file-wrapper and contents, have to be limited to the precise mechanism and construction therein de,scribed, and, as thus limited, it is not infringed by the machine used by . defendants. Rodebaugh's original claim was broad enough to have covered the machine as used by defendants. It was "(1) the eccentric lever, E, Et, and connecting strap, F, combined with the vertical· shaft or the dog-head, substantially as described, and for the purpose specified." This claim was rejected by the patent-office on reference to said Ely patent, No. 163,309, in which is found an eccentric on the vertically reciprocating bar, which carries the lever dog, andCltpable oflocking the bar in any position it may be set. Upon the rejectiqn of this broad claim Rodebaugh was compelled to present the claim. now shown in. claim 1 of the letters patent issued to him, .whichQl).nnot. by any construction, or. under any rule of doctrine of equivalents, be Mlargedso as to cover, or embrace.what was previously It must manifestly be limited to the specific device therein described, in which the dog-head is locked when the eccentric lever has been moved of the circle, of its action, and through the half circle, or 180 brought into a perpendicular position with the standard or shaft. The defendant's lever is differently its greatest locking capacity when in a horizontal position, and losing this locking capacity entirely when carried. tQtbe position of the, perpendicular at which the Rodebaugh lever makes its most effective lock. I am clearly of the opinion that the.appIication for.·rehearing should be denied, that· oom.p!ainanta" bill should be with,.costs. . .
HOYD 11. JANESVILLE HA'Y TOOL
(Oircuit OoUrt:',W. D. Wisconsin.
PATENTS FOR INVENTlONS.,...AN'TICIPATION-HAY ElJEVATOB.
Letters patent to John M. Boyd, N0.800,687, dated June 17, 1884, are.vofd for want of, nQvelty, being. anticipated by prior patents. . .
·Mere differences of form and mechanics, which do not involve il).vention, are 'not patentablo. (SyUaous oy (lie Oour'.)
In Equity. This was ahiil forinfringement of letters patent of the United States No. 300,687, to Jot hay The defendant manI
Fubijcatlon delayed by failure to obtaiIl copy of opinioo at time of delivery.
ufactured hay carriers under letters patent of the United States No. 279869, to Frank B. Strickler. The defenses were want of novelty and noninfringement. Erwin &- Benedict, for complainant. Offield &- Towle, for defendant. BUNN, J. The best judgment I have been able to form in this case from the evidence and from an inspection of the various patents and machines introduced on the hearing is this 1'hat the complainant's device is anticipated by the various patents introduced by the defendant; especially by the Walters patent, the Brower patent, the Church patent, the Jordon patent, the Kirch patent, the Hennyton patent, the Hustis patent, the Drake patent, and the Van Sickle patent. That in view of the several patents and .machines, all prior to that of complainant, and' apparently accomplishing substantially the same results by substantially the same means, there was very little left upon that line for inventOl's to. work upon, and that the difference between the complainant's device and those preceding it is a difference of form and mechanics, and not one of art and invention. ComJ:llainant's bill dismissed, with costs.
(DiBtrict Oourt, S. D. N6UJ York;
By our law. as wen as by the York-Antwerp rules, the ship-ownerfs entitled to general averagoe contribution from the cargo for water damage done to the vessel in ,extinguishing fire. No geneml average contribut.ion is due from the cargo to the ship-owners. if the sacrifi('e is caused by such negligence of the vessel as the ship-owners are responsible for. lIeld, on the facts, that no negligellce of the vessel was shown. The omission to comply with a port by-law requiring a locked lantern, is not, of itself. negligence, when such a regulation is not enforced by' the local authorities, and is not shown to have been known to the master, and where the Dsual ship's lantern was actually used. The proceedings before a foreigc board of inquiry are not legal evidence here. To entitle to general average contribution. the act of sacrifice need only be ordered by those who for the time being are in lawful control of ship and cargo, and, although this fire was finally extinguished llnderthe direction of the port authorities. held that, ae this was by them while in control, under the lex loci, and as the act was a maritime act for the common benefit of vessel and cargo alone, and not for the supposed interests of otber property in theport, the Ship-owners were equitably entitled to contribution. under the maritime law. as if the master had retained sole control. and ordered the sacrifice.
SAME-SACRIFICE ORDERED BY PORT AUTHORITIES.
A British ship was chartered to load saltpeter and jute at Calcutta for a voyage to New York. The charter-pa,rty provided that all questions of general average should be settled in accordance with the York-Antwerp rules. and the customs of the port of destination. After the vessel had loaded at. her moorings, and was getting under way. fire broke out in the fore hold,