able, although the other two parties were ·oitizens of New York. These views apply to the original removal, as well as to that attempted at the trial. The case must, therefore, be remanded, with costs, and so must the other three cases.
SOJIURMEIER and others.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Minne8ota. June, 1881.)
Certain evidence set out in the opinion T.eld to show contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff and preclude recovery for injuries received by the fall of an elevator.
Motion of Plaintiff'for a New Trial. Tilden R. Selmes, for the motion. Gordon E. Cole, contra. NELSON, D. J. I have again oarefully examllled the evi· dence, and must deny the motion made by plaintiff's coun· sel. The plaintiff had been in the employ of the defendants for nearly a year previous to the accident, and had often operated the elevator in the mill. He was at work in the packing room of the mill, upon the last floor to which the elevator descended, and was injured by the sudden descent of the elevator, while he was sweeping the floor just under the opening through which the elevator operated. The defendants were using it, and in progress of ascending, when it fell, and one of them had leaped to a floor above as the elevator was passing, and the other came down with it to the room it had started from. The elevator was attached by a steel rope to a drum on a revolving shaft in the upper story of the mill, and could be started or stopped by throwing the belts from loose to fixed pulleys, or from fixed to loose pulleys, on the shaft. An iron rod attached to the machinery, and running down near one of the posts on which the elevator moved up and down, was used
HAMMERGREN.. lI. SCRUBMEIER.
to throw off and on the pulleys the belt which gave motion to the revolving shaft. .The. ate.elrope, which 'was .attached to the elevator and drum, was longer than necessary to allow the elevator to go down to the lowest floor by several feet, and this surplus was eoiled around the drum. There was an adjustable cam or set screw on the moving part of the elevator, and a collar on the iron rod in the.lowest room, where plaintiff worked; and if the cam was screwed up tight when 'the elevator carne down; it would hit thecoUar and operate the iron /od and throw the belt off the fixed pullies and stop .the machinery; but if the cam was not screwed up tight aria adjusted so that the rope was ta.utwhen the machinery stopped, the drum would revolve and the rope 'unwind so as to become slack. '. The plaintiff ha.d frequently used. the elevator and knew how to stop anq start it, and knew that the cam required to be adjusted when the defendants started to go up, and that the rope was more slack than usual. He n,either adjusted the cam so as to take up the slack and make ,the rope tl!.ut, nor informed the defendants, when they went on the elevator to ascend, that the rope was slack. The negligence of the defendants can be attributed only to the fact that they went upon the elevator and proceeded to operate it when the rope was slack; but the plaintiff, in proving this conduct of the defendants,also proves that, with knowledge that this rope was slack, he did not adjust it, although a wrench was in the room with which it could be done, and did not notify the defendants, but immediately as the elevator ascended went under it to sweep and was injured. This was negligence on the part of the plaintiff; and one who, by his negligence, has brought injury upon himself, cannot recover damages ,for it. Motion denied.
CONSOLIDATED SAFETY-VALVE CO. fl. CROSBY STEAU-GAtl'Glll VALVlll CO.
(Oircui# Oourt, D. Ha8Bacn,uB6ttB. April 30, 1881.}
1. PATENTS Nos. 58,294 AND 85,963. Patents Nos. 58,294 and 85,963,granted to George W. Richardson for improvements in safety.valves for steam-boiJers,held, not infringed by valves constructed under patents Nos. 159,157 and 160,167, granted to George H. Crosby.
Safety-valves containing the principles of additional area for the pressure of steam, and a stricture causing it to act by its expansive force, not being original with Richardson, he could not, whatever the words of his claIm, enjoin the use of valves resembling his owJi only in its adoption of these ideas. 8.
If the defendant has taken the complainant's invention, the court will endeavor to construe the claim to conform with that fact. Complainant's device, consisting of an annulur chamber outside the ground joint ofthe valve so regulaterl by the opening as to" hud. dIe II the steam when it begins to escape, assist it to open more widely, and not interfere with its rapid fall before the loss of too much steam, held, in the state of the art, not infringed by defendant's device, composed of a primary and supplemental valve, both within the shell, the latter (which furnishes an additional area for the ,action of the steam when the valve is in operation) resting on a chamber closed at the bottom, with outlets to the exterior of the shell, the size of which openings may be so adjusted by a sleeve on the shell's exterior as to cause the escaping steam to exert more or less differential pressure on the supplemental valve.
In Equity. T. W. Olarke, Benj. Dean, and Geo. Sheffield, for complainant. W. 'A. Herrick and J. H. Millett, for defendant. LOWELL, C. J. The complainant charges against the de· fendant an infringement of two patents granted to George W. Richardson, for improvements in safety-valves for steamboilers; one dated September 25, 1866, No. 58,294, and the other, January 19, 1869, No. 85,963. The former patent is the important one; the other is for a device to assist in adjusting certain parts of the patented valve. Richardson's