hibitNo 1 that is not the case. The same difficulty existed, for the same reason, in Exhibit P, and in all the forms of the Von Hofe stopper before Exhibit No. 1. The slot is called "an eccentric slot," in patent No. 163,553. Its existence made the action of the structure uncertain, and the structure must fall within the category of an incomplete experi. ment towards the invention of De Quillfeldt. 5. The only other defence insisted on in this case is the alleged prior invention of Otto. That has been considered fully in the decision in the Holiender There must be a decree for the plaintiffs on the first and ninth claims of their re-issue, and' fora '1'eference in the usual form 6S to profits and damages; and a perpetual injunction, with costs.
(Oircuit Oourt, D.Massaclju86ttB. January 22, 1881.)
A stay made of a folded strip of leather for covering and strengthening seams of boots or shoes, and provided with marginal grooves for reception of the stitches, and beaded edges for protection of the same, is not patentable as an article of in view of the prior existence and use of harness trimming, ladies' belts, and straps for pocket-books made of folded strips of leather, and provided with marginal grooves and beaded edges which served the similar purpose of receiving and protecting stitches.
2. SAME-RE-IssUE. Where the original patent described and showed that, by applying a stay-stnp to the seam of a boot or shoe, there would be formed upon its under side a central longitudinal channel or reCession, by virtue i)f its being saddled over the seam, a valid re-issue cannot he taken for a stay-strip having such a central recession 10rmed in it beforehand to fit or hug the seam.
In Equity. Geo. L. Roberts If for complainants. E. P. B1'Own, for defendants.
J. I have to-day decided, in a case between
the parties to this suit,· that the plaintiffs' patent for a presser· foot adapted to sewing stay-strips over the outward turned seams of boots and shoes is valid. The present controversy relates to another patent granted to the plaintiff Sutherland, re-issue No. 7,510, for a stay-strip as a new article of manufacture. The stay-strip, as described, is a narrow piece of leather folded or doubled so as to fit over the projecting seam, a.nd with a 9r groove to hug or fit that seam, and other grooves at the sides of the seam calculated t9 receive the stitches . by which the stay is fastened to the boot or shoe. The projection of the ",eam raises a fillet, as it is called. or swell, which serves to protect the stitches, and this is done still further by the beads or swells or fillets which. bound the grooves on the edges of the stay-strip. The specification explains one great advantage of a strip thus prepared to be that it can be sewed automatically to the boot or shoe with. out troubling the operator to guide it by hand so much as he must a strip of a different shape. He claims this stay-strip in its several forms. with beaded edges suited The defendants make a to receive the stitches. I cannot find in the article which they make. any decided central groove or corrugation adapted to the seam. They do not, therefore, infringe the first claim or the third, but do come within the second, which is for the stay-piece with these side grooves. The decision, then, must depend upon the validity of the re-issued patent. The original, No. 176,094, was for an improvement in stayseaming boot or shoe uppers, and described the method of putting a stay, with channels for the stitches, over an outward turned seam, as contrasted with the old method of turning the seam inward and leaving it unprotected. I am unable to find in it any mention of automatic sewing, or of a central channel to hug or fit the seam. On the contrary, the method described is simply to put a folded or double strip over the seam and sew it there. This will form a channel in the finished work, as the model frum the patent.office, when cut
open, clearly shows; and one sort of channel formed by the separation of the edges of the folded strip is shown in the drawings; but neither of these comes up to the description of the re-issued patent. The former does not enable the strip to hug the seam during the process of sewing, for it is made by that process; the latter appears to be an accident, and forms no part of the re-issue as construed by either party. The objections taken to the re-issue come to this: that it describes as a new article, to be made for the boot and shoe manufacturers, what the first patent did not fully describe, and which by that patent might be entirely made, as to aU its distinctive features, in the very process of sewing, and, therefore, as an article of manu,facture was incomplete, for no one could 'practically make a stay-strip for sll,le·by ripping out the stitches. The admitted or uncontradicted state of the art I understand to be this: Strips had been sewed over the seams of boots and shoes by hand, and by sewing machines. In 'one class of work, soft strips had been applied to outward turned seams with a rolling presser-foot, and the effect of the operation was to leave slight grooves or depressions nearthe edges of the finished and applied strip, which had the useful property of protecting the stitches, and a central swell over the seam. Grooved or beaded edges of leather stripE', where stitches were laid, had been used in harnesses and in ladies' belts, and straps for pocket books, and other articles. One of the pieces of harness produced in evidence looks very much like the plaintiffs' stay-strip. In this state of the art, and of the plaintiffs' patents, I am of opinion that a staystrip with beaded edges, to protect the stitches, could not be patented as a new article of manufacture, and that a staystrip with a central recession formed beforehand, to fit or hug the seam, could not be patented by the re-issue. Bill dismissed.
(District Oourt, E. D. New York.
:1YIarch 3, 1881.)
Where a collision occurred at sea between a schooner bound to N llW York and a steamer bound to the Delaware, each libelled the other for damages, and the steamer also libelled for salvage, having taken the schooner in tow; and upon trialHeld, that the corner of the house on deck, where the schooner carried her red and green lights, was not a proper location for the side lights; but where it appeared that, in spite of this location, the lights were visible to the approaching vessel, the faulty location of the lights did not conduce to the collision, and dues not render the vessel liable. Section 4234 of the Revised Statutes requires a lighted torch to be exhibited by a sailing vessel to an approaching steamer, whether the steamer be approaching from forward or abaft the beam; and where such torch is not exhibited the sailing vessel will be held in fault, unless clear proof be given that the failure did not contribute to the collision. Where lights of a schooner. plainly exhibited to a steamer, were not actually seen by the steamer until the schooner was too close upon her to avoid a'l;ollision. held, that the steamer was in fault; and. both vessels being in fault in this case, the damages must be apportioned.
2. SALVAGE SERVICES.
Services rendered by a steamer to a sailing vessel run down by fault of the steamer do not entitle the steamer to claim salvage.
Goodrich, Deady ct Platt, for the Niagara, Beere. Wilcox ¢ Hobbs, for the S. H. Crawford.
D. J. The three causes above mentioned have been tried togethet;. The first-named is brought by the owners of the steamship Niagara to recover of the schooner Samuel H, Crawford the amount of damages caused by a, collision that occurred between those two vessels off the capes of Delaware on the thirtieth day of December, 1880. The second action is brought by the same libellants to recover salvage for services rendered by the steamer Niagara to the schooner Samuel H. Crawford, immediately after the collision referred to, in t( wing her, when disabled by the collision, from the place of