FEDERAL REPOli'11EB: iVoI.
krtowledgoo to be an essential feature 'of' a good 'wheeled, chemical fireexUn'guisher. With all the testimony in the Case tending in one way, and with the legal presumption in favor of the validity of the patent to support it, it must beheld, for the purposes of this case at least, that the Steiner fourth claim is valid, unless the four patents put in evidence as anticipations defeat' it. These four patents are: (1) No. 131,414, September 17, 1872, to Stillson & Kley. This patent shows only the ordinaJlysolid spindle hose-reel, and not the hollow-journaled reel, which is the only element in controversy in the present case. (2) No. 142,488, September 2, 1873, to O. R. Mason, for improvement in devices for thawing ice from water or gas pipes. This shows the hollow-journaled reel, in connection with a force-pump, :but suggests nothing which the hollowjoutnaled reel alone would not as well suggest. (3) No. 142,637, Septerr'1ber'9,1873, to Finley Latta, for improvement in chemical fire-extingnishers. shows 'a rotary generator, around which the chose is woulid,so,tbatthe generator itself serves as a hollow journal. The defects'of this apparatus are quite obvious, and the testimony shows' 'that it Wlis pr?-cticallyuseless, and nevercould 'work, and it does not 'seem Wfue'to be a 'Step in the direction ofwhat was acconlplished' by Steiner. (4) ·No'.146·,386, January' 13, 1874, to Jahn Dillon/for ali improvement in This shows a hollow-journaledreel for a hose'pipe,'t6be connected with the ordinary water supply, and to be affixed I:<nhewall of abuilding. It does not seem to me to suggest anything in the direction ofthe complainant's device which the hollowjournaled' would not itself suggest. ,I do not find anyone ofthese. in usual form four patents' to be an anticipation. I will sign a in favor of the complainant.
DEDERICK 'V. WILLSON.
(O£rcuie OO'Urt, E. D. Penn&yl1Ja'1!-1.a.
4-pril 28, 1890.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONs:"-PRIOR STATE 011' THE ART-INFRINGEMENT.
'The first chum of letters patent No. 170,997, to Peter K. Dederick, dated Deoem" lIer xeadlng as follows: "Ina bailing-press, the combination of the beatllJ' or feeaer, ll',' with the lever, L, and the' rodllT2, for the purposes herein set forth," , -is not invalid in view of the pl'ior ot the art. .
This was a bill in equity to recover for the infringement of letters patent No. 170,997, granted to Peter K. Dederick, the complainant, dated December 14, .1875, for improvementsinbailing-presses. The first claim only Of the patent, covering a pecuHar kind of' automatic feeding appliance., was put in issue. It reads as fol1ows: "In a bailing-press, the combinationof'the beater or feeder; E;i1Vith We.lever,L, and rode-2;, for ,herein set forth." The defense relied upon was want of invention, in view of the following patents: Walker, No. 27,584; 'Moore, N.o.. 83,080; lCcioper" No. 28, 970; and ,Dederick, .. .
Church Church, for complainant. " " George H. Knight and Hill, for defendant. Before McKENNAN and BUTLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM. We do not find anything in the state of the art that would justify us in declaring the patent in suit invalid. It is therefore sustained. The infringement is clear. A decree will therefore be entered for the complainant, with costs.
LEARY ".THE MIRANDA.
NJjlW YORK, N. F. & H. S. S. CO., Limited,,,, LEARY.
(Circuit Court, E. D. New Y01;'k. June26,,181l0.)
The owner of the steamer ,¥iranda contracttJd,by a written charter-party, to tow e: large tatt'of logs by s.eafrom Port Joggins; Nova Scotia, to New York. The tow leftPortJogginson l the6thOf December, 1887. On the 18tb, in tbe midst of a heavy gale, the towing bawsers pa;rted. The steamer lay by the raft for a time,and then , started fQrNew York, arriving thereon the 22d.:: The raft became a total loss. SUit , was 'bro'u'ght to recover for the loss of the raft, and a cross-action to recover the towage mones 'under the contract. , The raft-owner claimed various faults in the Mi'randa: (1). That the original contract had been mOdified by an agreement that the raft should be towed to Eastport for orders, and not directly to New York, ,which mqdification had been violated. , Hetd, that such agreement was not proved. (2) 'That the tow was taken to sea against the protest of a representative of the raftowner aboard the Miranda. Held, that the charter-party contained no provision which gave any orie power to direct the master of the Miranda where to go, and, ontheevide,nce, the master committed no breach of duty in going as he did', for,at the time be made s1).cb determination the weather was fine and the danger ota voy-, age to New York was not eO obvious as to tnake the attempt negligence. (3) That the contract was violatedwhen the master determined to go ontside Nantuqket . sbolj.ls, instead of througb Vineyard sound. Held tbat, under the then known facts of the, avai,lability of Vineyardl\ound fortbe passage of such a tow, it was nj) breach of tbe mMter's duty to omit to go through that sound. (4) That the master's failure 'to keep near ports of safety caused the ipss. Held that, under the conditionof weather which existed when the master determined to go outside, such failure of duty. (li) That the,Yiranda had insufficient hawsers and ,stores. aild, that such insufficiency was not proved. (6) That there was fault in , not sooner sending the Miranda out again to look for the raft after of the steamer at New York. ,'Held, that this was no fault, as by the time the steamer's necessary repairs were finiab.ed it had become evident tbat further searoh was use· iess. , The libel for tbeloss of the raft was therefore disJ;J;liSlled, and the cross-libel fol'the towag,e money sustaineq. Affirming 40 Fed. Rep. 533. ,
In Admiralty. On appeal from district court. See 40 Fe4: :Rep. " , Action by Leary, owner of a raft known as the "Joggins Raft," the,steamer Miranda for negligence in towage, resulting in the losll,of tberaft. Cross-action by the owner of the Miranda for towage
,Ona-ppeal to the circuit Qourt iIi the case ofLearv v. of the circuit ju.stice were follows: