ROBBINS fl. WHITTLE.
Shobrook, carriage maker and blacksmith, says that some 13 or 14 years ago he saw a dash with rail like Exhibit 1, which was made by Morrison for Roberts, by whom Shobrook was then employed, and that to the best of his knowledge and belief it was placed-on a vehicle. There was an effort made to discredit Morrison by showing that he is contradicted by three witnesses as to what occurred with Simmonds (complainant, and one of the three witnesses) at an interview in 1885, but he is so strongly corroborated that I entertain no doubt of the substantial truth of his testimony concerning Exhibit No.1, nor that the dash-rail he made in 1872 or 1873 was used ona vehicle. It cannot be regarded as nothing more than an abandoned experiment. It is a complete anticipation of every feature of the device patented under which the complainants claim. The bill will be dismissed, with costs.
RoBBINS tI. WHITTLE.
(Circuit Court. D. Ma88ach'U8ettB. January 21. 1891.)
I'J.TBNTS POR INVENTIONS-NoVELTY-IHPROVEMENTS IN SPRING-BEDS.
In view of the priorstate of the art, as showu by various patents granted between January. 1876, and August, 1882, letters patent No. 270.458, granted January 11.1883. to James J. McCormack, for a device to strengthen the frame of spring-beds, consisting of a rod running through the center of such frame. and connecting the seotions of which it is composed. is void for want of patentable novelty.
In Equity. J. George Seltzer, for complainant. John Dane, Jr., for defendant.
CoLT, J. This suit is brought for infringement of letters patent No. 270,453, dated January 9, 1883, granted to James J. McCormack for improvements in spring-beds. The specification states that the invention relates to that class of spring-beds which are adapted to be folded longitudinally, and has for its object to keep the bed from sagging at its center, and to strengthen the frame. The only part of the McCormack bed which it can be pretended is new is a rod running through the center of the bed, and connecting the two sections or frames of which the bed is composed. Every other element mentioned in the two claims of the patent were old and well known at the date of the McCormack invention, and it is only the form of the rod or bar described in the McCormack patent that is new; for connecting rod&, extending between the ends of the same section frames, are clearly shown in the prior Keenholts patents. In view of the prior state of the art, as shown in the following patents: Nos. 10,179, issued August 8, 1882, to S. H. Reeves; 251,241, issued December 20, 1881, to George Keenholts; 212,443, issued February 18,
FEDERAL REPORTER, vol. 44.
1879, to William B. Crich; 179,190, issued June 27,1876, to William B. Hatch; 171,776, issued January 4, 1876, to William Chase; and 251,242, issued December 20, 1881, to A. Keenholts,-I must hold the McCormack patent void for want of patentable novelty. A decree may be entered dismissing the bill.
PULLMAN PALACE CAR Co.
WAGNER PALACE CAR Co. et al., (two cases.)
(Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-CAR-BuFFERS-COMITY BETWEEN CmCUIT COURTS.
In Pullman Palace Gar Go. v. Wagner Palace Gnr Go., 38 Fed, Rep. 416, letters patent No. 373.098, issued November 15, 1887, to the Pullman Company, as assignee of HenryH. Sessions, for an improvement in the connections between cars, was sustained by the circuit court for the northern district of Illinois, mainly on the ground that the buffer-plates of the two cars were kept in contact under constantly opposing spring pressure, while rounding curves as well as upon a straight track, thus to a large extent overcoming the tendency to oscillation. In that suit George M. Pullman filed an affidavit showing that the oscillation was in fact largely overcome by the device, even upon roads of greatest curvature. In Pullman Palace Gar Co. v. Boston & .A. R. R. Go., nnte, 195, the subsequent patent, No. 403,137, issued May 14, 1889, to George M. Pullman, for a vestibule connection between cars, in combination with. a device similar to that of the Sessions patent, Ilond.intended to accomplish the same purpose, and the drawings for whivh were almost. identically th<;l same, was afterwards sustained by the circuit court for the district of Massachusetts upon the ground, among others, that it was not anticipated!:lY the Sessions patent. In this suit Sessions gave testimony in behalf of the Pullman Company,.limitating his invention to the exact device described by the specifications, and the Pullman Company contended for a construction thereof which would necessarily prevent the buffer-plates from being in contact under pressure while rounding curves. Held, that the Massachusetts decision was inconsistent with the Illinois decision, and therefore comity did not require the Illinois court to enjoin an infringement of the Pullman patent on the strength of the Massachusetts decision.
InEquity. Offield & Towle and J. S. Runne18, for complainant. Gem'ge S. Payson, for defendants. Before GRESHAM and BLODGETT, JJ. GRESHAM, J. On May 13, 1887, GeorgeM. Pullman filed in the pat. ent-office his application for a vestibule connection for railway cars, and, after several rejections, patent No. 403,137 was granted to him on May 14, 1889. Later in the same year, the Pullman Company, as assignee of the patent, conJmenced a suit in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts against the Boston & Albany Railroad Company for infringement. In October, 1890, that court sustained the patent, and enjoined the defendant, and on the strength of that decree the complainant in this suit insists that it is entitled to a preliminary injunction. On April 29, 1887, Henry H. Sessions filed an application for an improvement on a railroad car, and, after one or more rejections, a patent was issued to the complainant in this suit as assignee of