WAITE fl. ROBINSON.
seized the package, he openly disregarded the law. For eight days he. remained inactive, taking no steps whatever to justify, support, or legalize his action. It does not appear even that he reported it to anyone. His contempt of private rights went far beyond his disregard of the existence and authority of this court. It is ordered that the rule be made absolute, and that the respondent, C. B. Swan, be adjudged guilty of a contempt of this court. It is further ordered that the marshal of this 'district take him in custody, and that he be imprisoned in the jail of Charleston county until he returns to the custody of the receiver the barrel taken by him from the warehouse without warrant of law, and, when that has been surrendered, that he suffer a further imprison. ment thereafter in said county jail for three months, and until he pay the costs of these proceedings.
WAITEv. ROBINSON et aL (01rcult Court of Appeals, Ffrst Circult.
PATBNTS FOR INVENTIONS-AD.JUSTABLE CHAIRS-INFRINGEMENT.
Letters patent No. 329,805, issued November 5, 1885, to Wllliam Boscawen, for an Improvement IJi chairs, consisting of a sliding supplemental foot, which may be, used as a bracket to support the 'seat, is not In· fringed by a device which substitutes the feet of a chair for Its secondary frame feet, and for which letters patent No. 416,324 were Issued to William G. Cross, December 3, 1889. 52 Fed. Rep. 295, affirmed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. In Equity. Bill by Gilman Waite against Charles H. Robinson and others for infringement of letters patent No. 329,805, for an improvement in chairs, issued November 5, 1885, to William Boscawen, and by him assigned to Daniel L. Thompson, Charles A. Perley, and Gilman Wa\te, for an improvement in chairs. From a decree dismissing the bill, (52 Fed. Rep. 295,) complainant appeals. Affirmed. James E. Maynadier, for appellant. George W. Hey and Alfred Wilkinson, for appellees. Before COLT, Circuit .rudge, and WEBB and CARPENTER, District Judges. CARPENTER, District Judge. This is a bill in equity to enjoin an alleged infringement of letters patent No. 329,805, issued November 3, 1885, to William Boscawen, for chair. The bill was dismissed by the circuit court, and the complainant appealed. 52 Fed. Rep. 295. The alleged' infringing device is that shown in letters patent No. 416,324, issued December 3, 1889, to William G. ,Cross. Th,e circuit court held that the patent in suit shows no patentable novelty; and, while we are of opinion that the decree
shouldhlJeaffirmed, we do not dnd it necessary to go so far as ,to1ll).d, thll.tthe patent is invalid, but rather rest our finding on the proposition that the patent must be :so construed as to relieve the respondents of the-charge of infringement. Adjustable chairs have been made in many forms' and for various uses, as the record,Iully shows; .and there remains, indeed, very little room for invention. The "distinct idea/' says the appellant, which is involved in, his patent,. is "a chair frame with four feet, two of. which are always on duty as feet, combined with a seat with but two feet, which are always idle while two feet of the frame are on duty, and vice versa." This may fairly be said to be the idea of the patent, if it be taken in connection with, and to be modified by, certain structures already known. In the first place, the device of six feet operating .as above described is shown in the patent No. 282,154, of July 31, 1883, to Edward H. Bolgiano. In that device the third or supplementary pair of feet are hinged to the front feet of the supporting framework. The device of using the front feet of the seat as supplementary feet is shown in the 202,788, of 23,1878, to Frederick ,Caulier; the device of using all four feet ()t the seat for the same purpose appears in the patent, No. 259,368, of June 13, 1882, to Lemuel A. Chichester; .and the device of using the rear feet·· of' the seat fol' appears in No. 191,294, of May 29, 1877, W I. Adams, and No. 202,046, of April 2, 1878, to Charles A".r Perley..' '. . There remains nothing ,for this patentee, as it seems to us, excepthis'specific device, which essentially consists in substituting for tb:e s'Winging or t;otatingsupplementary, foot of the Bolgiano supplementary foot, and giving to this sliding supchair' a plementary foot the additional function 01 a bracket to support the seat., :Neither of, these functions appears to be performed by the mechanisJP. of the Cross chair. In the chair of Boscawen, as in that ot :Bolgiano, there is a. triangular supporting framework whose front feet are made double or divided int?.. two parts, which two parfa,colUe into action alternately, while moss has reached the sameresrilt by substituting the feet of the chair for the sec· ondary frame feet, after the general method of constructioo suggested by the device shown in the Caulier patent. will, therefore be affirmed, with costs. The
MOLLER v. UNITED STrATES.
(CIrcwt Court ot Appeals, frifth Circuit. June 20, 1898.)
IMMIGRATION ..... CONTRAct· LABOR LAW--PRIOR CONT'RiCT ESSENTIAL TO FENSE.'" . ,
Neither the prepaying of transportation, the assisting or encouraging, iI). any·wise, the importation, of an lIlien, is a violation of the contract labor actot FebruarY 26, 1885, (23 Stat.'832, c. 164,) without a contract