and that these should bavemore influence as authority. Strictly and technically none of the decisions by any of the judges are of authority, and on the circuit I take it all the judges stand alike in this matter, supposed distinctions in rank not adding anything to the authoritative of judgment or opinions. Whichever judge holds the circuit court, it is the judgment of the court, and can be no more or less authoritative because of these distinctions. It would be intolerable if it were otherwise. Unfortunately, owing to our very absurd judicial system, it seems quite im:possible to introduce into it the rule of 8tare deciBiB, as between the different circuits and in the courts inferior to· the supreme court; the decisions of that tribunal alone being binding as authority upon all. If the first judicial decision of this question had been followed as a precedent, there woUld have been noconflict of authority, and "letters" would have beenexcluded from the operation of this act. But Judge DEADy'scar&l ful judgment was by him all too graciously, perhaps, made to yield to mere statements that other judges in his circuit thought differently, and without any published opinions from them. Other courts felt at liberty to disregard the first precedent, and so we have thAm all acting independently in judgment. This may be deplorable, but it is inevitable, unless all will yield to the first careful and intelligent decision as a precedent, strictly considered. On tbisclass of questions, altogether and absolutely within the federal jurisdiction, such a rule of judgment would be valuable, and I consider that in this case, substantially, weare following that rule, and that this judgment is fairly in the line of precedent. Demurrer sustained.
WATSON 'l1. WILSON
Aprll 27, 1888.)
E. D. PennsyZva:n(q..
The combination set forth in the first three claims of patent No. 298,200 is infringed bya machine in which the table is heldllP against the iron by the pressure of the operator, and returned,upon the lowering of the foot-lever by a spring, operated by the lowering of the lever by the operator, when the table has reached the extent of its motion. The'combination set forth in the fourth and fifth claims is anticipated by a machine haWing the neck-clamp and tail-clamps unconnected, and the latter consisting of a and not an Qxtellsible J:1lechanism, a.nd not operating automatically, 8sshown in bosom-ironer No. S, of the Troy Laundry-Machine Company.
In Equity. ,Hearing upon bill, answer" lind proofs. Bill S. Watson against Edgar Wilson and John William, lUnder, tra&ing as Watson & Binder, for infringement of plaintiff's shirt· irpning machine, patented February 12, 1884, No. 293,290. The olaims involved were 'the following:
(1) In 'lin an iron and an ironing-table, in combination iWitb'ttltlohanil!m substantially as described, operatlOg to move the table for-
WATSON V. WILSON.
ward, in contact with the machine, lower the table at the end of its forward motion. and return the table to the limit of its backward stroke. without contact with the iron, subBtantially as set forth. (2) The combination of an ironing-table with mechanism, substantially 8S described, operating successivelyand automatically to move the table forward,lower the table at the end of its forward stroke, and return the table to its backward stroke, without contact with the iron, substantially as described. (3) The combination, substautiallyas described, of the iron and ironing-taole with mechanism operating to reciprocate .the table: an operating mechanism by which the table is brought up and held against the iron during its forward stroke, and mechanism connected with and actuated by the table at the end of the forward stroke of the latter, and operating to lower the table-lifting mechanism, whereby the table shall be automatically lowered at the end of each forward stroke and returned in a lower position, SUbstantially as set forth. (4) In an ironing.-machine. the ironing-table provided at one end with a clamp, operating to hold down the shirt bosom at the neck, and at its opposite end provided with an extensible gripping and stretching mechanism. substantially as described, Whereby the shirt may be held at the tail portion thereof, and outward from one end of the table; in order to stretch the shirt thereon, substantially as described. (5) An ironing-table provided with means at one end for holding the neck end of a shirt; in combination with a combined shirt holder and stretcher at. the opposite end; consisting of 8 clamp, mounted su!Jstantially u.s described, whereby it may be extended out from the end of the table, and comprising a set of jaws and a spring connected to the inner jaw, next to the table, to force the Same against the face of the outer with 8 yielding, spring pressure. SUbstantially as described. Defendant introduced into evidence, as to fo.urthand fifth claims, letters patent No. 201,904, to R. Becker, April 2,1878; 239,853, E. L. Schlotterback; and catalogues No.1, 2, 3 of the Troy Company. known as the" Barkclay Catalogues," and the machine known as "Bosom-Ironer No.3," of the Troy Laundry-Machine Company. Wm. A; Redding, for plaintiff. John F. LewiB, for PER CURIAM.. The complainant's patent is for "certain new and useful improvements in ironing-machines." The claims are 23 innumber-, of which with only 5, however, have we anything to do. The bill charges infringement of others; but the complainant limited his charge on the hearing to the first 5. The 1st, 2d, and 3d claims must be sustained as valid. We do not find anything in the art, so far as shown by therecord, to justify us in holding them to be anticipated; nothing to overcome the presumption arising from the patent. The 4th and 5th are for the clamping and stretching devices. Upon careful examination of respondents' exhibit; "Bosom-Ironer No.3," and comparison with the clamping and stretching devices there shown, we are unable to distinguish in any material respect, the complainant's devices, designed for that purpose, from these. Claims 4 and 5 are therefore, ill our judgment, invalid. The respondents' machine is, we believe, an infringement of claims 1, 2, n.nd 3; and for this infringement respondents must be held accountable. The bill iF! sustained to this extent, and a decree will be entered, illgly, for an account. .
FEDE;Jt4L 'REPORTER. YO!.
WOODHOUSE et ale
(Circuit Oourt, S. D,' NeiJJ'York. December lS, 1889.)
PATENTS J'OR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMEiNT-;-BELT-FASTENERS. '
Claim 2 of letters patent No. 282,258,.issued July 3, 1883, to' Henry Blake, is for "a belt stud having cross-heads and ab.r, or shank f1attenelj. approximately at right angles to saidheads and bent near its end, so that said heads lie flat upon the belt... This 'device was .meant to be an improvement over the G. W. Blake stud, covered byletters patent No. 81,859, which punched out of sheet metal, and the ,actual improvement consistEld(l) uta stronger shank, the strength being .imparted by sw:aging or by flattening. aJld, \3Ompr,essing in. some way; and (2) in, a s\lW),k curved at the ends. Held, that theqla.im was not infringed by a stud which was made by punching alone, and which' has received no other flattening than such 81 is naturally produced by the punching process.
, In Equity.
Benj. F. Lee and W. H.. L. for complainants. Antonio Knauth and Arthur von Briesen, for defendants.
SHIPMA.N, J. This is a bill in equity, based upon the alleged infringement of the second claim ofletters patent No. 282,258, dated July 3, 1883, to Henry Blake, fClt a belt-fastener, for fastening together the 'meeting ends of leathet belting. ,'The state of the a,rt,at the date of invention was as follows: The belt-fastener commonly in use was patented to G. W. Blake, by letters patent No. 31,859, and consisted of a straight bar, terminating at each 'end in a cross-piece at right angles to the shank. When the meeting ends of the belt were brought together, back to back, the fastener was inserted throngh a slit in each belt, and the cross-pieces were turned at right angles to the slits. The belt was then flattened out and the fastener 'was necessarily bent into a V shape. One of the defects of this fastener was that the heads of the cross-pieces caught and injured the hands of the workmen, when they had occasion to shift the belt. The D. M. Weston patent, No. 76,861, endeavored to remedy this defect by rounding off or beveling the head, which was also $waged so as to harden it; the straight shank being left malleable. The Henry Blake fastener was designed to obviate the disadvantage of the G. W. Blake stud, and is thus described in the specification of the patent: .· The weakness of the old stud is fou:nd to be in the shank or bar. which is liable to be strained in the bending iucident to applying the stud to a belt In the improved stud, this weakness is removed byswagingthe bar,or shank. be done on two or on all fOU,r aides of the bar or shank; and the result is to or harden the metal. and to flatten the bar or shank, preferably, in a plane at'rlght'angles to the heads. 'fhis shape is prefelTed because it brings the ,thiCkness of the bar Of shank in the direction of the hend given to it in applying the,stud to a belt; and, moreover, the flattening of the shank occs.1\ less disPlacement of the leather of the belt, thereby avoiding weakening thereof at the joint. Heretofore, the studs being bent after their applicationto thebelt, and the heads being in the same plane with the bar or shank, the said heads project their full length above the surface of the belt, often occasioning their breakage, or checking the running of the pulleys. should they strike any fixed object, and sometimes injuring tht! workmen when, as is not uncommon, the belt is slJifted by hand. In the improved stud the shank or