M'ORARY 'V. PENNSYLVANIA OANAL 00.
and granting said decree even before counsel had completed the argument and presentation of the same. II Hatch Stem, for pla.intiffs. Samuel S. Boyd, for defendants. C. J. 'first exception specified that the matter excepted to is impertinent, not that it is scandalous. The bill alleges that the decision in the suit against Foree was made "after full consideration." The answer denies that it was made after full consideration, and then proceeds to allege that it was, "on the contrary," made under certain alleged circumstances, which, if proved, would go to show that it was not made after full consideration. But there is nothing in the circumstances alleged which makes the allegation scandalous, or which contains any imputAtion on the court. The matter excepted to is neither impertinent nor scandalous. The second exception is for insufficiency, and seems to be based on the idea that while the bill alleges substantially that the defendants have used the process claimed in the first claim of the patent, the answer does not specifically deny that allegation. But the answer expressly denies that the defendants have practiced the invention described in the first claim. The exceptions are overruled, with costs.
PENNSYLVANIA CANAL Co.-
(Circuit Oourt, E. D. Pennsylvania. Octob'er 28, 1880.)
This was a bill in equity complaining of the infringement of re-issued letters patent No. 5,630, for an improvement in coupling and steering canal-boats. The respondent denied the novelty of the invention, and alleged also that the re-issue was for a different invention from that described in the original invention. The case was heard on bill, auswer, and prClofs. J. J. Combs, for complainant. Henry Baldwin, Jr., for respondent. PER CURIAM. The bill here is founded upon are-issued patent to the complainant for "improvement in coupling and steering canal-boats." . This is alleged to be invalid, as being fora different invention from that described in the original patent. The difference between the two patents consists in a slight change in the points of attachment of the coupling and centering chain, D, to the stem of the forward boat, which appears only in the drawing attached to the re-issue. It is altogether immaterial, inasmuch as the mode of operation, the manner of construction, or the function performed are not in anywise affected. The remaining defences do not require a detailed discussion. It must suffice to say that they are not sllstained. The allegation of infringement is supported by satisfactory evidence, which the respondent's proofs have not overthrown, and none of the prior patents exhibited cover the complainant's invention. There must, therefore, be a decree for the complainant; but, inasmuch as the allowance of an injunction would cause much greater injury to the respondent than benefit to the complainant, the decree will be only for an account.
!HE SOOTS GREYS V. THE SANTIAGO DB OUBA.
THE SOOTS GREYS V. THE SANTIAGO DE CUBA.-
SANTIAGO DE CUBA V. THE SOOTS GREYS.
(District (]owrt, E. D. Pennsylvania.
January 4, 1881.)
In Admiralty. These were a libel and cross-libel, filed, respectively, by the steamships Scots Greys and Santiago de Cuba, to recover damages for a collision between the two vessels in the Delaware river. The collision occurred at or near a buoy which marks the eastern extremity of Horseshoe shoal. This shoal is a sandbar, somewhat resembling in shape a horseshoe, with both heels on the western or Pennsylvania shore, and the toe extending out into the river to within a short distance of the eastern or New Jersey shore, the channel curving around its eastern extremity. The collision occurred about noon, with a flood-tide and north-west wind. The Scots Greys was coming up the river, deeply laden, and the Santiago de Cuba was going down light. Both vessels were approaching the Horseshoe buoy, the Scots Greys being the nearest t() it. The Santiago de Cuba blew one whistle to indicate to the Scots Greys her desire to pass to the westward, and POrted her helm. This signal was not heard on, nor answered b,y, the Scots Greys. As the "'essels continued to approach, the Santiago de Cuba again blew one whistle, which was neither
*'Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.