WOVEN WmE MATTRESS CO. V. PALMER.
(Circuit Oourt, 8. D. New York. May 27, 1880.)
1. WOVEN WIRE MATTRESS
BED Co., 1 FED. REP.
222, followed in this case.
In Equity. C. E. Perkins, for plaintiff. C. Goeller, for defendant. BLATCHFORD, C. J. Within the rulings made by Judge Blodgett and Judge Shipman, on the plaintiff's patent, I am of opinion that the frame purchased by Roberts from the defendant infringes clai1'l1s 1 and 3 of the plaintiff's patent. It has, substantially, the inclined end rail of the patent, made in two parts, for the purpose of clamping the fabric and holding it suspended by means of the inclination between the points of attachment. In it the end rails are raised above the side rails arid held in place by'corner irons, or· atandards, which perform the same function as the plaintifrs'standard. There are no: inclined recesses in its standards, to hold the ends of the end rails in aninclined position, but the end rails are evid:entlypurposely inclined, and held so by a screw bolt passing through apart of the standard and into the lower end rail. . So, too, the end rail is double. The ends of the fabric are bent over the upper edge of the 10wer end rail, and the bolts, or nails, or screws, which go through the upper end rail and through the fabric and into the lower end rail, aid -inholding the fabric to the frame: The side rails, standards, and end rails on such frame' are the manifest equivalent of those in the plaintiff's patent. I do not consider claims 2 and 4, and do not decide anything as to their construction, or as to the infringement, but grant the injunction asked for on claims 1 and 3.
(District Oourt, E. D. MiOhigan.
PLEASURE YACHT CHARTERED FOR
The owners of a small steam pleasure yacht, engaged in navigating the Detroit river, running in and out of the port of Detroit, hQ,d, not entitled to the benefits of the limited liability act, although at the time of the loss, out of which the cause of action arose, she was chartered to a third person for hire. It is only vessels engaged in what is ordinarily known as maritime commerce, which are subject to the provisions of this act, and the facts that they are duly enrolled, licensed, and inspected, and are otherwise subject to the navigation laws of the United States, are immaterial.
In Admiralty. On petition of owners for limitation of liability. The petition amended set forth-First, that petitioners are and were, at the time of the collision hereinafter mentioned, the sole owners of the steam-yacht Mamie, a vessel enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade, and engaged in commerce and navigation between ports and places in different st'ates and territories, and foreign countries, upon the lakes, and the navigable waters connecting the same.' Second, t,hat on the evening of Jhly 22,1880, a collision occurred in the Detroit nver between the Mamie, then on a trip and car· rying passengersfrom Monroe to Detroit, in the state of Michigan, and thesteam;boat Garland, also an enrolled and licensed vessel, and engaged in the same commerce. in consequence' of such collision the Mamie was sunk and became atotal wreck, and seventeen passengers were drowned. F'ourth, that such collision and loss of life were not caused. by the design,. or neglect of the petitioners, or either of them, but the 'same happened, and the loss, damage, injury, and loss of life resulting therefrom were occasioned, without the design, neglect, fault, or privity of the petitioners or either of them; wherefore, they claim a limitation of liability as 'provided in the Revised Statutes,and offer to pay into court the value of their interest in the"Yamie and her freight, .pending