87 FEDERAL REPORTER.
11,2'19; Albright v. Trimming Co., 2 Ban. & A. 629, Fed. Cas. No. 147. Complainants may take the usual decree for injunction and accounting.
E. INGRAHAM CO. v. E. N. WELCH MFG. CO. (Circuit Court, D. Connecticut. June 11, 1898.) al.
PATENTS-NoVELTY AND INVEN'l;ION-EvIDENCE.
Evidence of reduction in cost, improved appearance, increased strength, large sales, and inequitable conduct by defendants is only relevant where the question of novelty is in doubt.
SAME-BASES FOR CLOCKS.
There is no invention in merely cutting the under surface of the old molding section used ill forming bases for clocks, so as to drive the nails in from below instead of above. The Wright patent, No. 594,309, for a'base for clocks, is invalid on its face for want of invention.
This was a suit in equity by the E. Ingraham Company against the E. N. Welch Manufacturing Company and others for infringement of a patent for a base for clocks, granted to William H. Wright, November 23, 1897. George D. Seymour, for complainant. W. E. Simonds and Mitchell, Bartlett & Brownell, for defendants. TOWNSEND, District Judge. To this bill for infringement of No. 594,309, for base for clocks, granted November 23, 189,7, and assigned to complainant, defenqantsdemur for invalidity appearing on the face of the patent. The claim is for"A framed clock base, consisting of several wooden molding sections framed together, and each provided' upon theinller face of its upper with an integral, inwardly projecting assembling 118,llge, extending throughout its length, and formed by cutting away a portion of its inner face, a panel placed upon the upper edges of the sa1d framed molding sections so as to rest upon the assembling flanges thereof, and fastening devices passed upward thrOllgh the said flanges into the lower,tace of the· panel, which they firmly bind ,to the framed molding sections. substlirntially. as described."
. In short, the patentee asserts a monopoly in clock bases proltided with such a flange, through which tacks may be driven from' underneath. In support of this claim, counsel for the patentee states that 'he proposes to rely on proof of reduction iii cost, hnproved appearance, strength, large arid inequitable conduct on the part of defendants. These facts, If showll,would be relevant only where the question of patentable noveltyis in doubt. Here it is clear that the' if they a.re' not the ordinary construction employed in brackets, shelve,S, and moldiIigs,al.'e/at most, the result of the exer· cise of the merest mechanical skill.
The patentee, in his specification and drawings, shows that his invention consists in cutting the under surface of the old molding sec· tion so as to drive the nails in from below instead of above. It is impossible to conceive of any evidence which would dignify such a manifestly mechanical expedient with the name of invention. The demurrer is sustained.
THE EUGENE. (CIrcuit Court of Appeals, NInth CircuIt. No. 430. 1Ia112. 1898.)
ApPEAL AND ERROR-FINALITY OF DECREE.
A decree in admiralty. awardIng libelants a definite sum, adjudgIng that a marItIme lien exists therefor, and directing the sale of the vessel and payment of the proceeds into the registry to await the further order of the court, Is a final appealable decree.
SAME-MARITIME LIENS-BREACH OF CONTRACT.
There can be no maritime lien agaInst a vessel for breach of a contract of carrIage where she never in fact entered on the performance thereof. and neIther the libelants nor their baggage were ever received on board. or placed In the care or control of the master. 83 Fed. 222, affirmed.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the District of Washington. Williams, Wood & Linthicum, for appellant. John C. Hogan and Patterson & Easley, for appellees. Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and HAWLEY, Dis trict Judge. ROSS, Circuit Judge. The appellant is claimant of the steamboat Eugene, and brings this appeal from the decree of the court below against the steamboat and in favor of the libelants and of Walter M. Cary, Fred M. LyoIls, and Edward J. Knight, named in the de· cree as interveners, each in the sum of $800, and directing that a writ of venditioni exponas issue against the vessel to satisfy thedecree, with costs. Exceptions to the original libel having been sustained (83 Fed. 222), the libel was amended. As amended, it al· leges, in substance, that the defendant Portland & Alaska Trading & Transportation Company was, during the times therein mentioned, a common carrier by water of paSoSengers, baggage, and freight between the city of Seattle, Wash., and Dawson City, on the Yukon river, one E. B. McFarland being its general manager, and one C.W. Gould its transportation agent; that during all of the times men· tioned the trading and transportation company owned and operated, in connection with· its said business, the steamboat Eugene, and also operated, in the same connection, a steamship known as the Bristol; that on, prior, and subsequent to August 11, 1897, the Eugene and the respondent company baused it to be publicly and extensively advertised that the Eugene, in tow of the Bristol, would leave Seattle for Dawspn August 23, .1897, and would transport passengers to the number of 350, or less, including their baggage and freight, hOt to