J6BNSON t1. BROOKLYN & C. R. CO. SAME v. STEINWA.Y& CO. SAhlll:' 'II. LEWIS & FOWLER 'M:A.NUF'G CO.
(Oirouit Oouw., E. D. New York-December, 1889.)
PATENT!! FQR INVENTIONS..,.I1iFRINGEMENT-R"\ILROAD SWITCHES
H. P. R.
It having been heretofore beld by the court (33 Fed. Rep, 499) that letters patent No. 117,'198,-grantedto ThOmas Newman, c-omplainant's assignor, July 18f l871,for an improvement in swiWhes for horse railroads, were valid, held, that the device ,used by defendants in. this suit was an infringement of such patent, and that the new ,evidence addttced'fnthis eBSe called for no modification of the previous decree.
In, Equity. ' On bill for injunction. Duncan, Curtis & Page, (Robert H. Duncan, of coullsel,) for complainants. Fto8t & Cbe, (Louis W. Ji'roBt, of counsel,) for defendant.
LACOMBE, J. 'This patent was before Judge COXE in JohnaO'n v. Rail,. road (h., 33 Fed. Rep. 499. After investigating the state of the art as disclosecl by an examination and comparison of the various patents put in evidence in that case, he reached the conclusion that Newman (com..; plainant's assignor) was the pioneer inventor of a combination, being the first to produce a practical horse-railroad switch, which could be operated by the weight of the draught animals oscillating a tip-table, the verticle movement of which is converted by connecting mechanism into horizontal movem ents of a switch-tongue. Whatever improvements upon Newman's Invention are found in the device used by defendants, the latter is plainly an infringement of his patent when thus broadly construed, is whether or not the state of the and the only point left for art will warrant so broad a construction. This, however, has been dEl-' cided by Judge COXE, and the only question is whether the new evidence presented in 'this case calls for any modification of that decision. Sev·, eral prior pMents,not before him , have, it is true:,.been introduced, but , they do not show, any more clearly an anticipation of the combination of the Newman patent than did the Sansom and Alexander patents, which were considered in the former case. Decree for complainant.
THE UMBRIA. FABRE t1. CUNARD S. S. CO., Limited. DOLLAUD". SAME et al. HEMISPHERE INs. CO. V. SAME. NORD-DEUTSCHE INS. Co. t1. THE UMBRIA et al. ARNOLD et 01. 'l1. SAME. CoATES 'l1. SAME. SWITZERLAND MARINE INS. Co. '11. SAME. BRITISH & FOREIGN MARINE INs. Co. ". SAME. TRANSATLANTIC MARINE INs. CO. II. SAME.
Court, E. D. New York. January 9, 1890.)
AnAD-GoIlm FULL SPEED. It is a fault for the master of a vessel in a fog, on the high sea, who has slowed his vessel on hearing a wbistle ahead, to afterwards ring for full speed ahead, on the sUpposition that the danger is past, and before the position and course of the other vessel are known.
A violation of article 18 of the international collision rules, by going full speed in a fog, requires, to excuse it, the existence of a present dang-er, and a necessity to go at full speed to avoid it; and a belief on the part of the master of such vessel that a dang-er may in a certain event arise in the future, to avoid which he gives the full-speed order, is not the excuse permitted by article 28· The steam-ship Umbria had left the port of New York on one of her regular voyages to and had laid ,an easterly course along the Long island shore, and was running at a speed of not less than 16 knots. A dense fog prevailed at the time. She had overtaken the steam·ship Normandie, and had left her astern on her starboard quarter so far as not to the Normandie's whistle. A faint whistle was heard ahead on the starboard bow of the Umbria, and then another whistle on the same bow,"but more ahead than the first. The engine of the Umbria was slowed. Again the whistle was heard"and then the engine of the Umbria was put full speed ahead, her master supposing by the sound that the approaching vessel was clear of his oourse; or, as the official log stated, thinking that the approaching vessel would port for the Normandie he 'ordered fUll speed ahead, to pass her. Shortly afterwards, nearly dead ahe;}, and on a course crossing that of the Umbria, ap" p6ared the steam-ship Iberia. The Umbria's wheel was put hard a-port, and her engines reversed, notwithstanding which she struck the Iberia on her port quarter, cutting her in two. The place of collision was several miles off Long Beach, on the Long Island coast, and some 12 miles east of the entrance to New York harbor. Held,.that the cause of the collision was the erroneous order of the master of the Umbria to put that vessel at full speed in a fog, before the position and course of the vessel whose whistle had been heard were known. The French steam-ship Iberia, bound to the port of New York from the Persian gulf, W88 approaohing- the coast in a fog, steering W. N. W, for the Long Island coast, making about 8311 or 4 knots.an hour, soundinl\: as she went and blowing a fog whistle·. The whistle of the Umbria was heard a httle on the port bow, some min- . utes befote the collision which su bsequently ensued. The course of the Iberia was thereuponohanged to N. W., and she kept on blowing her whistle, in response to the Umbria's whistle, till the Umbria was seen through the fog near at hand, and heading for the Iberia's beam. The latter's engines were at once put full speed ahead, but she. was struck by the Umbria and sunk. Hdd, that the porting of the Iberia was not a fault, and did not contribute to the collision.
BAME-BELIEF OF FuTURB DANGlI:R.
.. BAME-FAOTS IN SUIT.
BAME-AppROACHING NEW YORKlIARBOR-CROSSING TllACJt OF OUTGOING VESSELS.
There is no rule which forbids a vessel bound for New York harbor to approach,the coast on a course the track of vessels bound eastward from the port of'New York. . The opinion ofejtperts, hOwever llltelligent and trustworthy, does not bind th& conscience at the .
IReportM by Edward G. Benedict,' Esq., of the New York bar.