DICK 'D. OIL WELL SUPPLY 00.
105
DIOK
and another, Heceiver, etc., v. OII.. WELL SUPPLY Co., Limited. (Oircuit Oom't, W. D. PennsylfJania.
September 19, 1885.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-WANT OF INVEl"1'ION. In this CIISC, held, that the alleged want of patentable
invention was not so obviouslhat the question of patentability could be examined and safely decided on demurrer.
ACHESON, J. The 'cause of demurrer assigned upon the record is that the letters patent sued on are not for any patentable invention; the described improvement in the construction of drilling jars for oil wells being the mere substitution of one material for another. Now it is indeed true that the specification discloses that drilling jars had been made substantially of the form and shape described, in the patent, usually of wrought iron alone, or in rare instances entirely of steel; but such jars, the specification alao reveals, were defective-liable to become locked together and inoperative while in the well, or to break-for reasons fully explained. These practical difficulties, itis claimed, are obviated by the invention here, which consists in.so combining iron and steel in the manufacture of drilling jars as to secure the necessary tensile strength in the parts subjected to great longitudinal strain, and the hardness of steel in the parts which give and'receive the blow, and which are subject to great frictional wear, such end being secured by welding into the wrought-iron jar a steel headpiece to receive the blow, and by making of steel the inner faces of the link-bars where the frictional wear is the greatest. In view of the service required, and the obstacles to be overcome, is there an obvious want of patentable invention in this device? Whether an improvement in machinery is the result of mere mechanical skill and good judgment, or involves the exercise of the inventive faculty, is often a nice That the improvement here belongs to the category of invention, it must be presumed, was shown to the satisfaction of the officials in the patent-office, and I am not prepared to say, upon a mere inspection of the patent without any proofs bearing upon the subject, that the decision of the office was erroneous. Moreover, the bill of complaint alleges that Guillod was the "true, original, and first inventor" of the improvement, and that it was "not known nor used before." Still further, the bill sets forth th{tt this court hitherto, in a contested case, particularly referred to, between other parties, made a decree, at final hearing upon the merits, sustaining the validity of the patent, and in another recited case granted a preliminary injunction to restrain infringement. The truth of all these allegations the demurrer admits. Perhaps cases may arise
In Equity. Sur demurrer to the bill of complaint. Joshua Douglass, for complainants. James C. Boyce, for defendant.
106
FEDERAL REPORTER.
where the question of patentability is so clear that it may be examined alid safely decided on demurrer, but I think this is not such a. case. If, then, the demurrer had no other ground of support, it would be overruled. But at the hearing the defendant's counsel (as he had the right to do, Daniell, Ch. Pro 614, and note) aJlsigned, ore tenus, another cause of demurrer, viz., that F. W. Ames, who sues in his own name as receiver of the Gibbs & Sterrett Manufacturing Company, has no title in or to the patent, and that the bill is defective on its face for want of the party holding title. This cause of demurrer must be sustained for the reasons set forth in the opinion just filed in the case of the Same Plaintiffs v. Struthers, ante, 103.
THE MAROH.
MILLS, Ma.ster, etc., v. TYSON and another.
(District Oourt, D.
July 23, 1885.)
GRAm CUARTIllR-PARTy-CONSTRUCTION OF WORDS "Now AT PORMAN, ABOU'l' HEADY TO SAIl., OR ALREADY SAILED." New York agents of 'the British sleamer March were authorized to charter her for a cargo of grain from Baltimore to a British or continental port. The steamer had some time previously sailed from Venice to Porman for a cargo of mineral, and her exact situation was not known. The charter-party contained a stipulation that she was then at Porman, about ready to sail. or had already sailed. Shedid in fact have one7half her cargo on board, and with favorable weather could have completed her loading in a little over two days, but by unfavorable weather her It>ading was delayed seven days. Held, that the steamer was not about ready to sail, within the meaning of the stipulation. and that the charterers were not requjred to load her.
In Admiralty. R. H. Smith, for libelant. A. W. Machen, for respondent. MORRIS, J. On April 23. 1884. the owners of the British steamer March, by cable authority to their agents, Funch. Edye & Co., of New York. chartered the steamer to Tyson & Brother. of Baltimore. to carry a cargo of grain from Baltimore to a port in the United Kingdom or the continent. The steamer had sailed from Venice to Porman, to take in a cargo of iron ore, to be brought to Baltimore for her owners' benefit. and Mes.s1's. Funch, Edye & Co. had authority to procure for her a grain charter for her return vOY,age across the Atlantic. The charter-pl).J:ty, executed on the twenty-third of April. <\Elscribed the steamer as "now at Porman. about ready to sail, or already sailed." The stealller did not, in fact, sail from Porman until the afternoon of the thirtieth of April,-:-a delay of seven days. . The charterers had based their calculation as to the arrival of the