plainltnt's patent are of practical'value, and that the driver upon the plow, by theuse of the machinery provided; is enabled to regulate the operations of the plow in a convenient manner. The combination thereof has a value sufficient to sustain the patent if it was novel when patented. A large number of patents of date prior to that of complainant have been introduced for the purpose of showing the state of the art, and thus seeking to sustain the defense of want of novelty. It cannot be questioned that it appears therefrom that complainant is not a pioneer in this field of invention. Broadly stated, it is apparent that in all devices of any practical value intended to combine a riding attachment to a plow, the main object to be provided for is enabling the driver, when in his seat, to control the operation of the plow proper; 'for, unless the driver can, as necessity arises',' control the depth and width of the furrow, and the steady movement of the plow, the addition of the riding attachment have little value. Without going into a statement in detail of the various devices shown in the several patents introduced in evidence, it is sufficient to repeat what has already been said, that it appears therefrom that complainant is not a pioneer in this line of invention, either as to the result sought to be accomplished or the means used to bring about the result. On the other hand, it has not, been made clear that his com· bination is not novel as such,'unll'it cannot be held, therefore, that the primajafJie casein his favor, arising from the fact that he holds a patent duly issued, has been successfuHytnet. The defense, therefore, of invalidity of complainant's paten( cannot be sustained. Upon the question of infringement greater difficulty arises. It is admitted that the defendant corporation has been manufacturing and seIling plows' constructed according to the specifications and drawings attached to letters patent No. 353,234, issued to Charles S. Ruef under date of November 23, 1886; and the contention of complainant is that they aTe in fact an infrit;lgemeht; In sllbstance, the purposes arrived at in the several combinations shown in the McBride and Ruef patents are identical, andit is to be, expeCted that many of the several parts in the different ma.chines should be' fdnnd"to be absolutely identical. As complainant'is not the inventor; however, Of any of such independent parts, the mere tisethereof by the defendants does not constitute an infringement. In many respects the construction of the two machines is .sub.8tantially 'the same, and generally it may be said that, if the McBride machine was the first of its kind in its entirety, the Ruef machine would certainly irlfringe it in several pa1'ticulars. But McBride is not the inventor of the several co-acting parts of his machine, and it was therefore open'to others to use these several parts, or any number thereof, and by ne,v combinations thereof work out the same results accomplished in whOle orin part by complainant. Of course it is not meant by this that the'consequences of infringement could be escaped by slight changes in the combination, or by changing the mere position of some of the parts; if the differences were such that a hew combination was the result, it'would not then be an infringement. While the question is not by any means entirely clear ti6r free from doubt, yet the conclusion reached
BICHARDS 11. MICHIGAN CENT. B.
is that the specific forms of combination found in the McBride machine are not repeated in the Ruef machine, and therefore the charge' of infringement is not sustained. The bill of complainant must therefore be dismissed,at his costs.
RICHARDS fl. MICHIGAN CENT.
R. Co. et al., (three cases.)
(Circuit Oowrt, N. D. lZZinois, N. D. October 21,1889.)
PATBNTS FOR INVENTIONS-GRAIN-TRANSFERRING APPARATUS.
Letters patent granted November 18, 18!<4, to Edward S. Richards, for a " graintransferring apparatus," covered a combination of (1) a stationary building; (2) two railway tracks passing into oron opposite sides of !luch building; (3) elevating apparatus; (4) an elevated hopper-scale, with a valve in the bottom; and (5) a disCharge-spout, for discharging the grain from the bottom of the hopper into·the car on the opposite side from the car from which it was taken. that the combination was not patentable, as it was but an aggregation of old parts, with nothing done by either which it did not do when acting separately.
In Equity. On bills for infringement of patent. W. A. Gardner and Armstrong, Reed Dyche, for complainant. G. Payson and Sidney Smiih, for defendants.
BLODGETT, J. These are bills in equity, charging the respective defendants with the infringement of a patent granted to complainant, November 18, 1884, for a "grain-transferring apparatus," and praying an injunction and accountinF;. The apparatus described in and covered by the patent consists of a stationary elevator building, with two railroad tracks passing into oralong-side the building on opposite sides, (I see no reason why the device wouJd not operate equally as well if the tracks passed along-side the building as if they passed into it,) so that ordinary grain-carrying railway cars can stand on each track opposite, or nearly opposite, to each other; an elevating apparatus, so arranged as to elevate grain from the chute, or pit, into which it is shoveled or dumped from the cars to a scale-hopper in the upper part of the building; and a spout leading from the bottom of the hopper, so as to carry the grain, after it is weighed, to the car on the opposite track. The patent contains two claims: "(1) The combination of a fixed or stationary building, the tracks, F and G, an elevator apparatus. and elevated hopper-scales. having a fixed or stationary hopper, provided with a valve or slide in its bottom, and a discharge spout, P, adapted and arranged for discharging the grain directly from the said hopper into a car, substantially as specified, and for the purposes set forth. (2) The combination of a fixed or stationary building, the tracks, F and G, two or more elevating apparatus, a series of two or more elevatell hopper-scales, having fixed 01' stationary hoppers, each having a valve or slide in its bottom, the discharge spouts. P, P, adapted and arranged for discharging the grain directly from the said hoppers. respectively, into a correspondingly arranged car, a horizontal conveyer. the chutes. J, J, having therein the doors or valves, K and L, and the slides or doors, 0, 0, all arranged, sUbstantially as shown and described, with relation to each other, and for the purposes set forth."