FEDERA·L' REPORTER

"

CATCHPOLE

et cit

".PULSIFER.

«(Jircuit (JOU'!'t, N. D. Nw Yo'!'k.

August 8, 1888.)

STEAM GENERATOR.

,

PATENTS FOR

Letters paient No. 122,360 for an improvement in base-burning steam generators. df. wbicb t;be distinl>uisbing feature is a centrally located coal reserdownwards mto:tbe fire-box. and protected from tbe destrucvoir tive action of the heat by a surrounding water-space connected by tubes with tbe watllr-space the fire· box, are not Infringed by defendant's device, wherein tbe reserVOIr extends to, but not into, the furnace or firebox, there being no water-jacket, surrounding tbe ·reservoir.

In Equity. Bill to restrain infringement of letters patent. a. H. Duell, for complainants. Frederick I. Allen, for defendant.
COXE, J. ' The complainants' patent, No. 122,360, is for an improvement in bas&.burning steam generators. Its distinguishing feature is a centrally located coal reservoir extending downwards into the fire-box. This reservoir is protected from the destructive action of heat by a surrounding water-space at its lower extremity. Tubes connect this waterspace with the water-space .surrounding the fire-box. A constant circulation of water is thus established. The claims alleged to be infringed are as follows: "(2) The water-space, d, arouJld that portion of the coal reservoir projecting into the furnace, for the purposes set forth. "(3) The circulating tubes, e, in combination with the water-spaces, d and d', operating substantially as described. " The first claim is for the water-space surrounding the lower portion of the coal reservoir, which projects into the furnace. The description and drawings clearly show the reservoir extending into the fuel-chamber, which is expr6l'lsly called the 'i fire-box" in the specification. There is no justification for a construction which makes the claims embrace a reservoir provided with a water-jacket which is surrounded by heat simply, or by what the complainants' expert witness terms "a combustion chamber." 'fhe reservoir must extend into the fire-box. The third claim is for a combination, one element of which is the water-jacket around the projecting reservoir. It is quite clear that neither claim is infringed unless the defendant's apparatus has this element. His reservoir extends but not into, the furnace. He has no water-jacket surrounding the reservoir within the fire-box, to protect the reservoirfrom destruction by heat. Located as it is, it needs no such protection. The spaces which the complainants seek to include in the defendant's fire-box are no more a part of it than the fire-tubes shown in the drawings are a part of their fire-box. As the defendant does not infringe, the bill must be dismissed, with costs.

FORCE V.

WASHIN6TON INS. CO.

767

Co.

FORCE

et al,

'11. PROVIDENCE

W ASHINGT01'l

INS.

Court, S. D. New York. June 4, 1888.)

1.

MARINE INS'ORANCE-lNTERESTOF' BOTTOMRY LENDER-BALVAGE-COLLECTION OF AT INTERMEDIATB PORT - DISCHARGE OF INSURANCEFOREIGN LAW.

Libelants made advances on an obligation by which the master of a German bark bound for I. and M. promised to pay a certain sum "ten days after arrival atflnal p,ort of destination. "for which payment he pledged vessel and freight, and directed his consignees at the port of flnal destination to pay the obligation from the first amount of freight received.. Respondents insured libelants on "advances against captain's draft," the policy covering "all perils of the seas which reduce the things hypotheCated to a less value than the sunis insiJred, or which prevent the collection df said draft in whole or in part. " At I., the vessel discharged part of her cargo, and collected $1,900 freight; and on the' way from I. to M. she foundered, and was a total loss. A letter from the owner stated that the I. freight "was only enough to pay ex· peJ;lses for discharging at a port of distress, and the owners got no benefit. It Held. that,· though the bottomry lender was entitled to salvage, if there was any, it was to be inferred th!lot the freight collected was lawfully used by the master for the necessities of the voyage; also, that libelants had no resulting to compensation therefor against the owners under the provision of the German Code, art. 452,which provides that contracts made by the master un· der his ordinaJ:Y authority constitute no personal obligation upon the owner; that the contract assured payment out of the freights to be collected at the jinal port; and oil both grounds held., that the collection uf the 110 Ilo treight did not discharge. the insurance pro tanto.

2. BAME-.!BANDONMENT-BUBROGATION-NoTICE-WAIVER.

Where full payment of insurance on advances upon a bottomry obligation is refused on the ground that the insurance contract was pro tanto discharged by the collection of freight, notice of abandonment to the insurers of any claim (}f the iDsured against master or owner by reason of such collection of freight is waived. Insurance on bottomry draft.

In Admiralty.

Sidn&g Chubb, for libelants. George A. Black and J. Adriance Bush, for respondents.
BROWN, J. The libelants are indorsees of a bottomry obligation of which the following is a copy: "£912 6 11 Stg.' NEW: YORK, July 12,1888. "Ten days after arrival at final port of destination of the German bark caUed · Betty Wendt,' of I am the master, now lying at New York, loaded with ReM. petrm. in 800 cases turpentine. and ready to sail for 110 Iloand M!l:nilla, I promise to pay to the order of C. &. Co., nine hundred and twelve pounds, six shillings, and eleven pence, British Sterling, in approved bankers' demandbilIs on London, value received, for necessary disbursements of my vessel at this port, for the payment of which I hereby pledge my vessel and freight; and my consignees at the port of final destination are herebYJlirected to pay the amount of this obligation from the first amount of freight received, fQr account of my said vessel. Any other draft or. obligation by me drawn at this port on said freight to be secondary to this. [Signed) '''Ii. SPffiGELBERG, Master of Ger. Bk. Betty Wendt."

It is conceded that the above draft is a valid instrument of bottomry .

FoPce v.. The Pride ofthe Ocean, 3 Fed. Rep. 162. The libelants having
advanced money upon this draft, on the 12th of July insured their in-