SAWYER SPINDLE CO. et a!. v. TAYLOR et a1.
(Circuit Court, D. New Jersey. June 6, 1893.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-PREI,IMINARY IN,JUNCTION.
",VherB infringement is establishf'd, and it is shown that the validity of ("()l1lplainant's patpnt hal' been sustained in a contested suit in another district. a preliminaJ.·y injmlction w111 be granted him when thl' only ad· ditional evidence is such that, had it been introduced in the prior suit, the decision of the court must, under the view expressed in Us opinion, have been the same.
In Equity. On motion for preliminary injunction in a suit by the Sawyer Spindle Company and others against Taylor and other!:! for infringement of a patent. Motion granted. W. K. Richardson, for the motion. Geo. P. Wittlesey and A. Q. Keasbey, opposed. DALLAS, Circuit Judge. This suit is based upon the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 253,572, dated l!'ebruary 14, 1882, granted to John E. Atwood, for "support for spindles for spinning machines." The claims involved are:
"(3) eombination. SUbstantially as hereinbefore described, of a spindle rail of a spinning machine, a spindle, and a supporting tUbe flexibly mounted with relation to the spindle rail, and containing step and bolster bearings. (4) The combination, slllJ>;taotially as hereinbefore described, of a spindle rail, a spindle. a supporting tube containing step and bolster bearings, flexi· ble connections lletW saW tube and spindle rail, and adjusting devices ell for the dE'grec of flpxibility of the supporting tube and spindle there· in. (5) The combination of the spindle rail, the spindle, the supporting tuite, lnnsely mounted .with rdatioll to the rail, and containing the step and bolster bearin!1's for 'the spindle, the spring, and the nut for compressing it, sub· stantially as uescribed. "
It was agreed at bar that for the purposes of this motion it may be assumed that the third claim is inclusive of the fourth and fifth; and as the third claim, together with the second and fifth, has been sustained in a contested suit in the district of Connecticut, the validity of all the claims now sued upon must. with respect to the present application, be taken to be conclusively established. Spindle CO. Y. Turner, 55 Fed. Rep. 979, (recently decided in the district of Connecticut,) and cases there cited. I have, however, examined and considered the only additional evidence which, upon this point, has bem adduced in this case, being an English patent granted to the representatiw of David McC. Weston for "centrifugal machines," but do not doubt that if that patent had been introduced in the Connecticut case its decision would still have been the same. The opinion of Judge Ship· man is plainly applicable to this English patent, although it was not brought to his attention. Infringement, too, has been clearly established. The substantial identity of the contrivance of the defendants with that of the ColU' plainants is so plainly apparent upon inspection that it would be r,;uperfluous to compare them in detail. It is not necessary to
QUINLAN V. PEW.
enlarge upon the views which, as to the points that have been mentioned, I stated at the hearing. Suffice it to say that the impressions then indicated have, by investigation and rrJiection, been strengthened and confirmed. I did entertain some doubt the question of laches, which was presented with much earnestness and ability, but have now arrived at the conclusion that there is nothing in the case to show a waiver by the Ct)m· plainants of the right which they now assert, or which should preclude them from the allowance of the special equitable which they invoke. They proceeded against these defendants with What, under the circumstances, was due diligence, and have done nothing to justify the imputation that supineness or apparent acquiescence upon their part induced or invited the infringement of which they now complain. The complainants' motion for a preliminary injunction is granted, and the writ may issue accordingly.
QUINLAN v. PEW et at. (Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit, June 1, 1893.)
No. 28. 1.
SHIPPING-LIMITING LIABILITy-KNOWLEDGE OK PRIVITY.
The owners of a schooner chartered her at her bome port orally for a fishing voyage to the master and crew. Before the voyage commenced, the bull's eye on one of the jib pennants was cracked, and had sharp edges that cut the sheet. The owners did not know of this, but the master did, and bad time to inform the owners of the defect in season to have it remedied, but failed to do so. The master had been employe.d by the owners to put the vessel in condition. On the voyage thE: sheet parted, and one of the crew was injured thereby. HeM that the occurrence was without the "knowledge or privity" of her owners, within the meaning of Hev. St. § 4283; and, where such person injured has sued them for damages, they are entitled to proceed in admiralty for a limitation of their liability. The right of the owners to proceed under this statute cannot be defeated because they had so let the vessd that the charterers became oVl--ners pro hac vice. Nor it be defeated on the ground that there was a contract, express or implied, on the part of the owners, that the vessel was seaworthy.
SAME-OrrAH1'ERERS AND OWNERS.
SAME-'VAHRAN'l'Y OF SEAWORTJIrNERR.
.. SAMg-SINGLE OI,AnI AOAINST VESSEL.
TIle right of the owners to a limitation of their liability in such case Is not defeated by the fact that such claim for perSonal injuries was the ')r;.ly claim against the vessel. Tha Rosa, 53 Fed. Rep. 132, disapvroved. Burden of prouf under the statute.
LIABILITY OF OWNERS
SIIIPPING-INJUny TO SEAMAN-DEFECT IN VESSEl, -COCHAItTEItEHS.
A member of a fishing crew, who is a cocharterer with the master of the fishing vessel, stands in no better position than the master in respect
.---....----------_.·..... _._-------_ ..--