NEW YORK GRAPE 'SU'GAR
fl. AMERICAN GRAPE SUGAR CO.
The claim is for a combination in which the "springs, I," and "the projections, i," are elements. As shown in the drawings, the springs are not strictly volute springs, but are flat springs, coiled at the end at which they are fastened, and which exert their pressure at the other end, and when they are less closely coiled; and are similar to those shown in prior patents for door latches, and locks, which operate against the end of the latch or bolt, upon a toe, to throw the latch or bolt forward. The clasp alleged to infringe the patent is provided with two springs, which consist of short pieces of flat steel wire fastened at one end, and bent at the free ends, to conform to the two curved sides of the box, along which the springs press and move, and which curved sides in connection with the springs tend to draw the two parts of the clasp together. They are not volute or coiled. The free ends do not act against a toe or projection, unless the curved side of the box can be deemed to be a toe. ' ,I think that the complainants' patent, if it can be sustained at all, must be liinited toone in which the springs are of the details in form and character; and have the co-operating parts as described, and that the springs of the' defendants' clasp are not such springs. There was as much invention in employing the springs of the defendants' clasp instead of the springs of the patent as there was in employing the springs of the patent instead of the spiral springs. The bill is dismissed, with costs.
NEW YORK: GRAPE SUGAR Co. v. AMERICAN GRAPE SUGAR
(Oircuit Oourt, N. D. New York. May 26, 1890.)
Co. d fll.
An interlocutory decree, after finding an infringement of plaintift's patents by defendant corporation, directed the master to take an account of the profits which had arisen or accrued to the corporation thereby; and on suggestion that the individual defendants were all the stockholders and officers of such corporatioll, and might, under the g!1ise of a new name and form of a lIew corporation, contillue to illfringeJ the decree further directed the master to also take an account. of profits that haa accrued to such individual defendants over and above the profits of the corporation. Held, that the decree did not direct an accounting of profits arising from infringements by other previously existing corporations, ill which defendants' were stockholders, or by corporations which had previously been formed in ,good faith, and not for the purpose of evading the deoree, though defendants were' controlling stockholders therein.
FOR INVENTIONS-INPRINGlWllNT-ACCOUNTING FOR PRoFITS.
In Equity. Esek Cowen and F. H. Pla.tt, for plaintiff. John R. Bennett and John G. Milburn, for defendants.
SHIPMAN, J. The matters in issue upon .this hearing arise upon the admissibility of testimony which has been offered upon the accounting, which has been objected to by the defendants, and whioh hasbeencertified by the master for the opinion of the court. The history of the' patents is detaile<;l in. 18 Fed. Rep. 638, and 24 Fed. Rep. 604. ,The'
four Hamlins, who were co-defendants in the American Co. case, were the officers and all the stookholders of said company. The defendants were charged with a joint infringement of five patents in one and the same factory. The interlocutory decree, after finding an infringement by the corporation of three patents, directed the master to take an acconnt of the profits which the defendant company received, or which have arisen or accrued to it, "and which have accrued to the other defendants, over and above, and not part of and distinct from, the profits of the defendant corporation by reason of any infringement by said defendants." This direction was inserted for two reasons-F'irst, because i,twas suggested that the Hamlins, being all the stockholders and officers of the corporation, might have been able to ohtain for themselves profits from the use of the patented process, and the consequent business of the company, which did not manifestly appear upon its books; and, secondly, because of the suggestion that these four individual defendants could, the interlocutory decree, take the shield of some other name, and, under the guise and form of a new corporation, of which they were the continue to direct an infringement, real and sole owners and and to infringe the patents; arid it was urged that a decree for an accountingsimply by the corporation would be inoperative. ' It now appears that, during the period of the infringement by the American Company, the Hamlins were the controlling, though not the only, stockholders in two other corporations in other states which own glucose factories, and that, before the date of the decree, the stockholders in all these Hamlin corporations and their Buffalo competitor and rival, Fermenich Company, had formed a new corporation, called the "Americari Glucose Company," which became the owner of substantially and plants of the old corporations, the Hamlins ownthe entire ing three-fourths, and the Fermenich stockholders owning one-fourth, of the stock of the new company. This was really 11 new company, and not 'a mere reappearance of the American Grape Sugar Company under another name, and was established in good faith, and not to evade the decree. Since its organization, if has bought three other glucose factories.in which the Hamlins had no interest. The Hamlins are officers of the glucose company. The plaintiff has made inquiries in the accounting to ascertain whether the Peoria and the Glucose Companies have infringed, for the purpose of subsequently ascertaining the profits which thl;l Hamlins made as stockholders of said infringing corporations, and claims the right to compel an accounting by the individual defendants of the profits which they may haye received, as. managing officers and stockholders of other corporations than the American Grape Sugar Company, by reason of the infringement by such corporations so under the direction ·of the Hamlins, of the patents in suit. These questions were objected ,tojand haveoeen certifi"edby the master. The interlocutory decree intended that an accounting should be had of the pl'ofits which had accrued to the American Grape Sugar Company by reason: of its infringement, and of other and distinct profits which had aoor-ued to the Hamlins, who were the .managersand all the stockholders
of said corporation, by reason of its said infringement, or which should, before the close of the accounting, accrue to them by reason of an infringement of the same patent by these individuals under the cover of some other name, or under the guise of a new corpo:'-';'ion; but it was not intended to direct an accounting of profits arising from infringements by other previously existing corporations, like the Peoria Company, in which the Hamlins were stockholders, or in corporations which had previously been formed in good faith. and not for the purpose of eva<ling the obligations or terms of the decree, although in such corporations the Hamlins were controlling stockholders. In the opinion of the court, the questions which have been certified by the master are inadmissible.
(Dlstrlet Court, W. D. Pimnsylvania. May 211, 1890.)
CoLLI8ION--VE8SEL8 TORN FROM MOORINGS-FLOOIi8-INEVITABLB ACOIDBNT.
During a sudden and. extraordinary flood in the Monongahela river, tbe defenda.ntB' fleet of water-craft was torn from its moorings at nigbt,and carried down . stream, and, it was charged, collided with and damaged the libelants' coal-boatS. Upon the facts disclosed by the proofs, hel,d, .that the case was one of inevital:!le accident.
Tbere being no such particular relation between the libelants and the defendants as imposed upon the latter any special obligation, they were not bound to exercise more than ordinary prudence, skill, and diligence to hold their :fleet. .
' , ,
The highest degree of caution that could be used was not reqUired of the de, fendants.
In Admiralty. Libel in personam. D. T. Watson and Knox &; Reed, for libelants. D. F. Patterson and T. H. Baird, for respondents. ACHF:sON, J. I shall not discuss the question of juri8diction, but, fo)lowing the later decisions, will regard the case as one cognizable in a cOtut of admiralty, and proceed at once to a consideration of the merits of the ,controversy. The libel charges, in substance, that the defendants' of water-craft and rafts of timber,-composed of three barges, five .coalboats, a flat-boat, and several rafts,-which was lying in the Monongahela river at Monongahela City, was improperly, negligently, and insufficiently moored and tied up, and that by reason of negligence in that regard said fleet broke away from its moorings about 11 o'clock on the night of 10, 1888, and, drifting down the river, came into collisi4¥) with, and thereby sunk and damaged, thirteen coal-boats belonging to the libelants, which were lying in the river 200 feet below, well and. securely movred to the shore: Upon a careful examination of the vQluprQpfs, lfind the material facts to be as follows: The deferidantIJ'