BRICKILLD. atTY OF BUF),ALO.
this character, the court may go outside and beyond the claims of the interfeljng patents, and consider generally the two inventions or structures, taken as a whole; and complainantB as an authority upon this point, the case..·of Garratt v. Seibert, 98 U. :::;. 75. In that case, however, the answer did not deny, but rather admitted, an interference of the patents, and it is therefore not an authority a/!:ainst the general doctrine which the courtB have laid down upon this point. Bill dismissed.
et aI. tI.CrrY
OF BUFJrALO ef,
(CITCuit Own, N. D. New York. February 117,1899.)
.tatutes of patents.
do not apply to aotions at law for the infringement of
STATUTBS 01' LIMITATIONS.
At Law. Action by William A. Brickill and others against the city of Buffalo and others to recover damages for infringement of a patent. Raphael J. M08e8, Jr., James A. Hud8on, and Samuel W. Smith, for plaintiffs. George M.BrOUI'Ileand Philip A. Laing, for defendants. Albert H. Walker, amictl8 CUM.
CoXE, District Judge. The only question argued is whether thr state' statute of limitations applies to actions for the infringement of patents. This question has been examined now, as well as on formel' occasions, with· the result that, in my judgment l the weight of precedent and reason is in favor of the proposition that the state statnte!:! do not Itpply. I shall so rule if I preside at the trial of this action. The question, however, has never been decided by the suprtlme court or by any of the circuit courts of appeals, so far as I am aware. and there is great contrariety of opinion in the circuit courts. May v. Ccrwnty of Logan. 30 Fed. Rep. 250, and cases cited on page 257. The defendants should, therefore, be permitted to fave the point. It is thought that the rights of both parties can best be protecttld if the formal ruling is postponed until the trial. Adams v. Stamping Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 270. A decision of the circuit C()urt of appeals will, so far, at least, as the second circuit is concerned, settle the qupstion, which should be presented to that tribunal unembarrassed by any technicalities of pleading. To sustain the demurrer now might tend to complicate the situation should a review become necessary.
et al. v.
CITY OF HARTFORD
(O£rcmtt Court: D. C07l,necUcut. February 92, 1892.)
P,l.TBNTS FOR GINES.' ' , OJ!' ' aEATER FOR FIRE-EN·
Letters patent No. 81,132" issued August 8, 1868, to' William A. Brickill, consist of a water beater connected with tbe boiler of a steam fire-engine by two detachable pipes, one carrying the cold water to the heater and the other returning it, heated, to the boiler, thus "maintaining a free circulation between the boiler and heater, " and keoping the water in the boiler always hot, so as to expedite the generation of steam on a fire-call. Pipes controlled by cocks connect the heater with a water-tank, and when the engine is away the same circulation is established and maintained between the heater and the tank, "the object being to preserve the coil or beater." The ,for the with a steam fire-engine, of a heating apparatus, constructed substantially as described,! for the ,purposes fully set forth." Held, that it sufficiently appears tba,t tbe tank is a part of the heater, and not a separate eleIUent of the combination, and is !lot void on its face for uncertainty. '.' ',',. ' aspai'tof tbeheatlIig apparatutijthe olalm cannot be said to ,8now on its ,fllce only an unpatentable aggregacionof .partsj since there js a joint and co-operating action between the heater and the boiler. and the aotion of each influences tbe action of the otber. 8. S... STATt;l'P!S. , , · ", '., ' ", " ' ' " :, State statutesof limit'atlon,are not applicable, even in the aosertcle, ofa'federal stat, ute, to actions at law in the federal courts to recover damages hI" infringement of> patents. .. -;f.-,
At LaW. Action by Brickill and:ptpers l;tgainst tb,e of Hartford and others' to recover damages for the of patent. Heard on demurrer to the complaint. Overruled. RaphaeL,.; 1vlo8e<J. Jr., and Jame<J A. Hudson, for plaiqtiffs,: ," ) 'llimothy E.,Steek,City Atty., and Albert H. Walker, for .' .' . .
SHIPMiA.N, District J udge.This,isan action atlaw to recover damages for the alleged infringement of letters patent No·. 81,132, dated August 18, 1868, to ,William A. Brickill, fOr an improved feed water heater for steam fire-engines. The present hearing is upon a demurrer ,to the plaintiffs' cOlllplaint. Before the date of the alleged invention,' or, of any shnilar device, the only method of keeping the water in a steam fire7engine in readiness to be immediately converted into steam when the summons came to extinguish a fire was by placing and keeping fire in the engine. That it was desirable to have the engine in readiness for immediate service is self-evident. That keeping a continuous fire in the engine was expensive, and, might also be otherwise injurious, is also manifest. The object of Brickill's improvement was to have a detachable beater,which would continuously be in use, and Bupply the engine with· hot water while it was :in the engine-house, and could be detached when the engine was summoned to extinguish a fire. The,specificntionsl\Ys:, "The nature of the present invention consists in combining with a steam fire-ellgine a water heater, so constructed and connected to the boiler of a steam tire-engine that the water in the same is made to pass through thE' beater, ahd become heated, so that steam may be more rapidly generated than if my invention were not used in connection with the engine. The object of