title,andinter6st."What-that was has baaen defined. The parties taking from and under them were, by the form of the oonveyance' from them, referred to Hamilton to ascertain what, in fact, the "right, title, and interest" of Lombard & Thompson was. What it was depended on the three instruments of August 27, 1866, taken together, and an inquiry of Hamilton would have disclosed that fact. There was enough, in the terms "right, title, and interest," in the assignment from Lomba.rd & Thompson, to put any purchaser from them, immediate or subsequent, on inquiry; and to charge him with notice of what such.inquiry, if made of their grantor, would have disclosed. While by the recorded assignment of August 27, 1866, the right to make may appear to have been invested in Lombard. & Thompson, yet they did not undertake to convey what that assignment appeared to convey, but only their "right, title, and interest" as it in fact existed. Th6i case, therefore, faU·within the principle of the two cases cited for the defen,dants. In this case no one made any inquiry of any person but Lombard & Thompson. Neither Hamilton nor the plaintiff are .bound by any suppression of the truth by them, or anyfaill1re on their part to disclose all three of the instruments, so long as they assumed to convey only thei:r: "right, title, and interest." It follows thatthe prayer (jf the petition must be denied.
(Oircuit Court, S.D. Ne1JJ Ytn'k.' --,1880.)
No. 150,921, tor an improvement in coal-scuttles, Mil not
In Equity. WHEELER, D. J. This suit is brought for an alleged infringement of letters patent No. 150,921, dated May 12, . 1874, granted to the orator for an improvement in coal-scuttles. As the orator is not the inventor of coal-scuttles, nor
of anything underlying the 'Whole structure, Me patent cannot be construed as covering the whole, but must be restricted to the particuhtr construction invented by him in order to stand at all. Railway Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554. His scuttle is made with a bottom stamped out of one piece of metal, extending upwards outside of the body. The defendant's scuttle is made in substantially the same way, except that the bottom extends inside of the body. Placing the body inside of the upward extension of the bottom is an important and distinctive feature in the plaintiff's invention, and IS made so by his patent. Without that, a scuttle cannot be said to be his style of scuttle. He rivets the body to the bottom, and the bottom to the base, and that mode of fastening them is described in his patent. :Had that been new his patent would probably have covered it, as well as the method of putting the parts together to form the scuttle. But that is an old and well.known way of Jasteningparts of metallic vessels together, and .not be patented to any one. His: patent seems to stand well enough for his particular style of scuttle fastened in that manner, and that is all. The defendants do not make that style, and· therefore do not infringe.. The bill is dismissed, with costs.
Trustee, v. J OUNSON.
E. D. New York. November 17, 1880;)
L RB·IsllUE No. 3,579, issued August 3,1879, to Nathaniel Jenkins, for a certain form of disc used for valve seats in steam joints, held fIOt infringed. 2. EqmvALENTs.-One substance does not constitute'the equivalent of the ot.her, when each produces a dUferent product under the same can-
In Equity. Decision on final hearing. Thomas William, Clarke, for complainant. B. F. Lee and Gilbert It Cameron, for defenclant.