charge. The court is also of opinion that the creditor has no standing in court at this time; that the proceeding is properly ex parte, and requires no notice to the creditors. The prayer of the petition is, therefore, granted.
(Oircuit Court, D. Dela'1011I1'6. January 29,1881.)
MECHANICAL EQUIVALENTS-SAME RESULTS.
Where a person procur'eltapatent for the building of a machine, which produces certain results which are novel and useful, by means of certain mechanical contrivances and appliances, any person who attempts to accomplish the same results by mere substitutions, which are equivalents of the means employed by the first patentee, is an infringer.
SAME-DIFFERl1lNCE IN FORM·
.AJJ.y application of known mechanical powers which will produce that result, although different in form from the means employed by the original patentee, is a mechanical substitute and equivalent of . the same.
Worth Osgood, for complainant. George P. Fisher, for defendant.
BRADFORD, D. J. This is a bill in equity, brought by the complainant, Wilt, agaipst the defendant, Grier, for alleged infringement of said Wilt's letters patent No. 190,368, issued May 1, 1877, originally to A. Quincy Reynolds, of Chicago, Ill., and by him transmitted by mesne assignments to the complainant. This patent is for an improvement in automatic fruit driers, and· its peculiarity and novelty consist in mechanical arrangements and devices by which a stack of trays, fitting into each other, the outer edges of which constitute the outer side of the stack of trays, or drying-house, are moved upwards, and suspended by attachments to the lower tray, in order that a fresh tray of fruit can be inserted at the bottom, and the process repeated at pleasure, thus building up the drying-house or stack from the bottom.
WiLT V. GRIER.
It is not contended that the patentee is the inventor of the movable trays, the outer walls of which constitute the dryhouse. It is admitted the existence of such trays, for such purpose, is old in the art; but the complainant contends that the patentee is the originator of an idea, which isa novel and useful one, of raising the stack of trays from a pOInt on the lowermost tray of the stack, thus making an opening for the insertion of a fresh tray containing fruit, and in this manner building the stack up from the bottom, instead of from tlia top. This is accomplished by arrangements and dey· !3es shown and described in his drawings and specifications. The defendant, G;:ier, admits that he has manufactured automatic fruit driers embodying the above ideas, but justifies his action under the authority gtanted him in letters patent No. 221,056, issued February 14, 1880. So that the question in controversy is a question of fact, whether or not the defendant, in making fruit driers in accordance with his patent No. 221,056, has infringed the cqmplainant's rights under the aforesaid patent No. 190,368. Now, while it is true, as a matter of law, that the issua:lCe of a patent gives a prima facie right to the claimant to operate under that patent, it is by no means conclusive, but is subject to investigation by the proper courts when questioned by a party whose rights are claimed to be infringed thereby. The right which is the subject-matter of this alleged infringe- . ment is to be found set forth in the complainant's fourth claim of his patent No. 190,368, and is in the following words: "In combination with a fruit drier, the outer wall of is made up of the frames of the several trays, as explained, a suspending device, operating substantially as described, and supporting said drier from a point in or on the lowermost tray thereof, for the objects named." Referring to the' drawings and specifications for the meatring of the words "substantially as described," as applIed to the term "suspending device" in said claim, we find that complainant does not confine himself to the precise means indicated by the words of the claim; for he expiesslysays: "And I desire to be understood as not limiting my invention
WILT V. GUIER.
complish the same result in the elevation of the stack of trays, from a point in or on the lowermost tray thereof, so as to permit the insertion of a fresh tray at the bottom? Thi!; question can be best answered by referring to' the opinions of the courts npon the meaning of the term "mechanical equiv. alents." Thus, in Carter v. Baker, 4 Fisher's Pat. Cases, 404, Mr. Justice S'awyer says: "When, in mechanics, onE device does a; particular thing, or a particulaz result, every other device known and used in mechanics, which skilled and experienced workmen know will produce the same result, or do the same particular thing, is a known mechanical substitute for the first device mentioned for doing the same thing, or accomplishing the same result, although the first device may never have been detached from its work and the second one put in its place. It is sufficient to constitute known mechanical substitutes, that when a skilful mechanic sees one device doing a particular thing, that he knows the other devices, whose uses he is acquainted with, will do the same thing." Mr. Justice Curtis, a high authority upon the subject of patent law, in Foster v. Moore, 1 Curtis, 279, holds that "the doctrine of mechanical equivalents · · · is not co'nfined by the patent law to those elements which are strictly known as such in the science of mechanics, but that.it embraces those substitutions which, as a matter of judgment in construction, may be employed to accomplish the same end." See, also, as illustrating the prinoiple of mechanical equivalents, the opinion of Alderson, B., in Mo"rgan v. Seaward, Web. Pat. Cas. 170. We are now in a condition to make the further and final inquiry, whether the defendant has infringed the rights secured to the complainant by his patent No. 190,368. The two machines, as will be manifest upon referenco to the specifications &nd drawings inthe respective patents, are alike in principle, having a stack in each case composed of sections of trays, fitting upon and into each other, the outer wall of which makes up and forms the exterior of said stack Or drying-house; and they are also alike in their purpose and
capacity of being moved upward from a point in or on the lowermost tray, and of being suspended in that position, so as to admit the insertion of fresh trays in succession. They are unlike in their respective appliances and devices by which these objects are accomplished, and also in the facility by whi.ch intermediate trays between the top and bottom can be removed. The devices by which the elevation of the stack of trays in the complainant's patent are elevated in the manner described for the purposes mentioned, are the cord and pulley, passing over an upright crane regulated by a windlass, or wheel and axle, with its ratchet and pawls as shown in one model-the point of suspension in this instance being direutly over the centre of the stack; and from the ends of the crossbars, to which the rope passing through the pulley is attached, depend ropes or chains, which are attached by hooks to handles upon the lowermost tray to be removed, thus contributing both lL lifting and suspending device, as shown by this model. The means adopted in the other model, complainant's Exhibit C, which the complainant claims is authorized by his patent as within the scope of the powers granted therein, consist of a wooden frame supporting the stack of trays as before described, said wooden frame sliding up and down grooves in two stationary posts, as power may be applied to move it, and connected by chains to a chain passing over pulleys in two upright posts at opposite sides of the stack; the respective ends of said chains being attached to the short arms of two levers, the fulcrum of each lever being attached to the lower part and outer side of said upright posts; the longer arms of said levers being connected with other chains passing over a -arum or shaft regulated by its pawl and ratchet. By the last-mentioned device, the novel and useful invention described in complainant's patent of elevating the stack of trays, 3S aforesaid, by the application of power at a point in or on the lowermost. tray thereof, so as to Pfirmit the insertion of a fresh tray at the bottom, is accomplished. The machine embodying the defendant's invention, under
WILT V. GRIER.
letters patent No. 221,056, is illustrated by model, defendant's Exhibit No.5, and exhibits the following means for effecting the elevation of the stack of trays, and their suspension, for the purpose of allowing new trays to be inserted at the bottom, to-wit: four movable uprights, each having a series of pivoted pawls, ana arranged to slide in four stationary posts, secured in a frame, in combination with a series of boxes, or trays, ha,ving notches in their sides, whereby the boxes may be lifted independently of each other, or all together. The power is applied through the medium of two worms, situated at each end of a drum, or shaft, extending along the of, and at least the width of, the stack to be lifted. These worms engage into appropriate cog-wheels, affixed.' to two other drums, or shafts, running at right angles to the first-named shaft, on opposite sides of the stack, and extend horizontally the length of the same. Upon each of these last-mentioned shafts are geared, at the ends of the same, small cog-wheels, which, in turn, gear into vertical rack-bars on the four sliding posts of the machine. The power is applied by means of a crank at the end of the first-named drum or shaft. Now, here is undoubtedly a contrivance and device by which the novel and useful invention first patented in the Reynolds patent, from whom claimant derived his title, of elevating the stack of trays from a point in or on the lowermost tray thereof, so as to permit the insertion of a fresh tray at the bottom, is accomplished. It matters not whether this device has the capacity of lifting the upper trays in the series, so as to open the same for inspection or for any other purposes. So long as it accomplishes the purpose, or possesses the capacity of moving up the whole series of trays from a point on the lowermost tray of the same, so as to permit the introduction of a fresh tray, it is, in that respect, an infringement of the complainant's patent; nor is this conclusion altered because of any supposed advantages gained by the greater facility afforded by the Grier patent in opening the stack at any point above the lowermost tray for purposes of inspection or otherwise. Thus Mr. Curtis says, in his Law of Patents, (4th Ed.,r § 311, p. 409: "If it accomplishes
some other advantages beyond the effect or purpose accomplished by the patentee, it will still be an infringement, as respects what is covered by the patent, although the further advantage may be a patentable subject as an improvement upon the former invention." The court, upon the best consideration it can give to this subject, has come to the conclusion that the defendant in this cause has used, in the elevation and suspension of the stack of trays in this drier, mechanical appliances and contrivances which, while they differ somewhat in form from those used by the complainant, are mechanical substitutes and equivalents for the same. And in the use of the same for the accomplishment of the same results as those produced by the complainant's invention, the defendant has infringed upon the exclusive rights secured to the complainant by his patent No. 190,368. And the court shall 80 adjudge, order, and decree.
COFFIN tI. THE BRIG AKBAR.
(District (Jourt, E. D. Keio York.
SALVAGE-YELLOW FEVER-AMOIDIT OF AWARD.
The crew of the brig Akbar, bound from Ha.vana for New York with a cargo of sugar, whcn five days out, were, with the exception of the mate, who was (tiling, and one seaman, taken down with yellow fever. Held, where the brig was boarded by the master and matEl of the schooner Munson, then short the chief mate and one seaman, in answer to a signal of distress, and command was assumed by the mate, who brought her safe to New York, and where neither the master nor the mate nor the Munson sustained any injury therefrom, that the Akbar and cargo should pay the sum of $3,600 for the services rendered. 2
SA)1E-SAME-DISTRIDUTION OF AWARD.
Held, further, that of this sum $2,500 should be awarded to the mate; $500 to the owners of the Munson; $350 to the master; and th& remaining $250 should be divided among the crew-certain seamen who went in the boat to the Akbar with the master a.nd mate receiving a double share.