dutiable, as . "textile .fabrics." It would seem t.hat.Ahey are manufactur,el1 articleslldvanced beyond and outsideo! t.he category of t.extile fabrics, and, like hemstitched handkerchiefs, are dutiable under paragJ;aph 34n, as handkerchiefs. 'Ve danot decide this proposition definitely, however, because the case is here upon an appeal by the collector only. The importer, not having appealed, can only be heard in support of the decision below. Chittenden v. Brewster, 2 Wall. 191; Alviso v. G. S., 8 vValL 337; The Stephen !forgan, 94 C. S. 599; Louden v. District, 104 U. S. 771. And, if an error has been committed by the court below, it was to the advantage of the collector, and furnishes him no ground of complaint. Campbell's Ex'rs v. Pratt, 2 Pet. 354; 'l'ilden v. Blair, 21 Wall. 241; Bethell v. Mathews, 13 vVall. 1. 'rhe judgment is affirmed.
ADEN v..T. L. MOT'r IUOX ·WORKS. (Circuit Comt of Appeals, Sl'cond Circuit. May 23, 1893.)
PATENTS FOR INVEN'l'TONs-INl<'HINGKMEN'f-OvERFLows Fon BA'fHS.
Ueissued patent NQ. 6,739, grant"'1 November 16. 1875, to .James Foley, for an improvl'ment in wash valvps ana oVPl1l0WS for basins and baths, ,"hicll consists in blinging up thl' standpipl'. or outer pipe of the overflow, through the casing or slab contil-,'1lOUS to tlw basin or bathtub, and securely attaching it to a removable cap resting' upon the outsido of thl' casing or slab, is not infringed by th(' dl'viee made lmder lptters patent No. 170,709, to 'Villiam S. Carr, in w11ieh the standpipe is s('cured hy a screw flange resting' on the top of the slab, but has no cap covering its upper end, as has the prior pah·nt.. 4G Fl'd. Hl'p. 77, aftirnwd.
Appeal from the Cireuit COlll:t of the United States for the Southern District of New York. In E.quity. Bill by Fred Adee against the J. I... Mott Iron Works for infringement of a patent. The bill was dismissed, (4G Fed. Rep. 17,) and eomplainant appeals. Affirmed. A. v. Briesen, for appellant. Francis Forbes, for appellee. Before LACOMBE, Circuit Judge, and WHEELER, District Judge. PER CURIAM. This suit was bronght. in the circuit court of the southern district of York for infringement of reissued patent No. G,n!), dated November 1G, 1875, and goranted to James upon surrender of original patpnt No. 153,250, dated Jul.v 21, 1874,fol' an improvement. in waste yalves and overflows. Th,· ,alleged infringement consists in the making of the device patented ,to 'William S. Carr in No. 170,709, dated December 7, 1875, for an improvement in waste valYes andover11ows for baths and bai;in"" and in which the devi·ce patented· to Foley was required by the patent offiCe to be, and was, disclairp.ed. 'rhe bill was dismissed fC?f want of infringement. 4G Fed. Rep. 17. 'rhis patent was be-
LEWIS V. PENNSYLVANIA STEEL CO.
fore the circuit court of the district of Connecticut, (Wallace, ,T.,) in Adee v. Peck, 42 Fed. Rep. 497. The improvement of Foley, as stated by Judge Wallace, COllsistt'd in bringing the standpipe of' the overflow up through I he casing of the bowl or bath, and securely attaching it by a removable cap to the upper side of the casing. The claim wm; for the standpipe passing through the casing, and receiving; at its upper end the removable cap, in combination with the over;iow pipe, valve, and means of suspending the overflow pipe and vnlYe from the cap, substantially as set forth. The means of attaching the standpipe to the upper side of the slab described in the original patent was the flange of the removable cap extending ontwardly around the standpipe upon the slab. In the reissue this function of the removable cap is omitted from the description, and the removable cap is left to be a cover, only, of the The drawings remain the same, but the retention there of the partR omitted from the description does not help the effect of omission. James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356. The remontb:e cap described in the reissue is not one securing the standpipe to the upper side of the slab. In Carr's device the standpipe is so brought up, but is secured by a flange. It is combined with an overflow pipe, valve, and means of suspending the overflow valve and pipe, but not from a cap. It has no cap as a cover of the standpipe. These means of suspem;ion are bayonet fastenings, turning, when raised, betwe the overflow pipe and the standn pipe. '1'his is not the combination of the reissued patent. Carr altered Foley's invention and improved upon it, but did not appropriate it as patented in the reissue. Decree affirmed.
LEWIS v. PENNSYLVANIA B'rEEL CO. (Circuit Court, IiJ. D. Pennsylvania. May 20, 1803.) No. 33.
PATENTS FOR INYENTTONS-I"'FRTKGK\IENT-ROT,LTNG J\'[n,T,s.
In letters patent No. 247,6115, Issued 27, 1881, to Chtistopher Lewis for llll improvement in continuous rolling mills, the fourth claim, which covers a combination of "laterally adjustable" carriages having a tilti:lg arrang'ement for the purpose of tuming over the rail or girller bef'H'e it is pas!'ed back throngh the adjoining Sl't of rolls, is stricHy lin!ited to a combination of whieh a latel'lllly earriagc is one of the elements, and tlwre is no infringement in the use of a combinatiou in which tilP (aniage is vertically adjustable, and adapted for use tn "three hig-h" rolls.
In Equity. Suit by Christopher Lewis against the Pennsylvania Steel Company for infringement of a patent. Bill dismissed. Rudolph lL Sehick, Frank R. Savidge, Henry K Paul, and S. S. Hollingsworth, for complainant. Philip T. Dodge, for respondent.