:: 1:.'

,: ..)f.'

l'

. iO,.

:"J'L,:,

'Lo'

!

11,189L)

OOlltMJUtO.....:.oa1:Gm.u. Pl<llti.Gi:., . . t1;J.l/ot· PrO pet;8on olllOmargartn,e In hta poslIElssiOllwith .ame; Cltshall oifet the same for sale, is. as to .;. "otiltiW 'paokages, aiJ,"lnWfference Witti illtel'fitate oommeroe,. and therefore UDCOJl,.

;G04' ¥ill-.....t...

iJ {

,

,";'

·

..

'.

.

,

,

"buyer''inIU,t'8kamille its'contents, ill nottllucha breaking llftae package as 'Will de..
stroy its _ "

cif.Mi Qriglnal paokage of oleomargarine,So that a prospective.

J'OR INSPBOTIOlf.

" '. .

!::,.

.!

1\ ,',

FetitioUiogbeencorivioted in a

(lo-qrt;')Sei'20

of 1w.ben8. cmpU,8. couJ!t,of,the of sellaffirmed in the'statesupreme .. Writ' gtanted, and peti:ti0ner discharged.
-"f :/' ·..... ' . ' '

., BoNn, Circuit'J'udgEj;';' :!l'hepetitioner has been, arrested and in<Ii'cted by. <jlJ: the city of .Balth;n,ore, ,aQQ. is now in jail, his 'l'he indictmept is for a violation of art. 27 ,$§' inC1\lsive, relating to the 1 SAJIil, ()f Jtcontaius counts. The first charges that dili WQD:e Simon N. asan article of food, 10 ppumds of mllnllfactured. 0\1t of an substance. de"igpedto butter. 'Thesecoqd couD;t charges that petitioner ,offeredto sellt<> ,Simon :N. MUler 10 pounds of the manufac,third he, had in 'his, possession, with ,tei) sell certain manufactured, out of other than pure milk or cream. There1s little dispute about the facts material to the decision of this question, wbich,tllsQIMlijilitselH'Qtothis: Whether or nota, party living in the state.canoJ:dftrfrom apa,ckage ot oleomargarine, and sell ..itintbe original pll.Pkllgeto a citizen, of Baltimore. The proof shows .that there was but one.. sale by petitioner,.,.-thatopO pounds to Miller. The packl;\ge ,in. q:uestion· was manufactured in Chicago by Braun & Fitts. UthaQ all the internal revenue stamps apd brands on it to show .thattheapt 9!congressha,d by theu;l been complied with. There is ;Some dispute as to was actillg llS the agent of some ,one else to us this makes.but little, proof is that he received the package from Braun &;,Fitt/3.,of .and sold it to Mil" ler., that:Pope & Janney, dealers in but-

G'eP-,

Hew8, 'for

Sb1te·

1jI:4.:,.rot. 9'7; 590, provi4es, r6!1pept to oleomargarine, tb.at no perSon" shall have the lIa'tillj 1n'bfs posBession with lIiteutto· sdllthe same. or Ihall sell or offer the _me for sllo1Q, · .
J Oode

,1

.;.':;;

.!:-:

. , '

j""

.·

"

"

"

ter in Baltimore, procured Miller and another to go to McAllister's place of busine$s, and seek to purchas6Qutter, apparently thinking that he would sell them oleomargarine for butter. When asked by Miller if he had butter for sale, hereplied he had not,'but he-had oleomargarine, which he was asked to show. . 'rhishe did. :M:iller then asked to have 2 pounds of the article sold to him,but McAllister iepliedthat he. could not sell JE!ss than 10 pounds in the. original package. The' two ,emissaries of.Pope & Janney then left,but, after consultation, returned, and desired to look at the oleomargarine.. McAllister removed, the .lid of the tub, Miller tasted it, and purchased the 10 pounds, package and aU. Having, 'as they thought, successfuUyplayedthe role of th!tt wladmired person who did all be could "to increase the trespass of. Israel,?' MeAl. lister, upon their testimony, was indicted as stated. That a person may import an article .a foreign country or one of the states of the Union, and sell i,t in the conditi(:>D in which it was imported, is not to be disputed now, after a long line of decisions by the supreme court, running as far back as Chief Justice MARSHALL'S day. A state may regulate the sale and· storage ofarticIes dangerous to the health of the citizen, but it cannot prohibit .the importation. The statute under which McAllister is indicted makes no allusion to the fact that it has a hygienic purpose, and it does not regulate the sale of oleomargarine, but prohibits its possession altogether in the hands of the importer. It is argued that the takinl{ the lid from the tub containing this oleomargarine was a breaking of the package so as to destroy its original character. This in no sense did it do. The goods had in no way become commingled with his property or the general property of the state. Low v. Austin, 13 Wall. 29. Anyone calling for oleomargarine with an honest purpose would have purchased this packageas an original one, even it he knew it had had its lid lifted off once to see whether or not it held another substance than it purported to hold. The laws of the United States recognize oleomargarine as a merchantable article. Being such, while a state may perhaps regulate sale, it cannot prohibit its importation. The statute in question doeE! this, and is unconstitutional, and in this respect. void. The petitioner is discharged.

J'EDERAL REPORTEB f

vol. 51.

(Circuit Court, N.p.

P",TBNTS

nUnaf.8.

-ruly 28, 1892.)

PQR !XVBNTIONB-PATBNTAl\ILITY-CORN HUSKER. ,Letters patent No. 290,571, issued :December 18; 1883·. to S. B. Goddard, for an im. :prpvement in the method of reducing corn in the stalk aud separating the kernels, c0lI-sisting of a cutter with feed rollers in front, a beater or a revolving soreen or separator, and a sbaking screen under it, all mounted in one frame, and . so, tb\lot the. parts are drive ll by a single band wheel, are void, since it con,.suts of old and well-known devices, JlOt so combined as to form a single machine.

'InEquity. 'Bill by the Appleton Manufacturing Company against the8taiTManufacturing Company, Delos Dunton, and H. G. Sawyer, to restrain infringemtlnt of a patent. Offield,Towle k.Linthicwm, for complainant. Raymond for defendants.
GRES'ElA:M:, Circuit Judge. This suit is brought for alleged infringementofletters patent No. 290,571, granted to S. B. Goddard, December 18,.18S3,for certain new and useful improvements in the method of reducing corn: in the stalk and separating the kernels. The complainant is the assignee of the patent. The invention is thus described in:' the specifications: "My,invention has relation to a new and useful method of reducing and separating corn from the stalk, hnsk, and cob; and the object is to take the and 80 treat it operation that the grains will be separated froQltllec!>b, and at the same time the stalk, husk, and cob are cut up or comminutlld and ready for use as stock food.-ensilage; or in this fiI1e condition it may be plowed into the "soil as a fertilizer without any further treatm'ept; and to these ends the novelty consists in the method hereinafter described/and particularly set forth intbe claims. In carrying out my invention the result is accomplis.hed by means of the devices shown in the accombutldo not wish to be understood as limiting myself to the as any mechanism which willprodnce the same result may be used. It will thus be seeIi.thaHhe machine may be placed in the field, and the stalks of COrn, being first 9ut down a few inches from the ground, may then be,t'ed in suitaole bunches' to the feed rollers. C, C, and cutters which cut the stalks, ears, and husks into small pieces. and, as above stated, this cutting operation removed the greater portion of the grain from the cob, and the remaining adhering grains are entirely removed by the thrashing action of the cylinders. H, H. and the mass then passes into the revol ving screen. I. where the corn and chaff or dirt pass throngh said screen, and fall into the shaker, L. while the stalks, husktl, and cobs pass out the lower end upon the incline, K, thence to the ground. The grain, corn, and chaff in falling into the shaker, L. is continually agitated. which sifts the chaff throug-h the leaVing the corn clean and clear, to be discharged through the opening, N." The mechanism described for carrying out the process consists of a cutter with feed rollers in front, a beater or thresher, a revolving screen or separator, and a shaking screen under it, all mounted in one frame, and so connected or geared that the parts are driven by a single band wheel. The two claims read: