TIMKEN tl.· OLIN.
205
TniKEN tl. OLIN (OirC1lit
et ale
(Jowrt, $. D. Ohio, W. D. June 111, 1888.)
1.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-VALIDITy-CARRIAGE SPRINGS.
Letters patent No. 197.689, issued November 27, 1877, to Henry Timken. for an improvement in carriage springs, which consist in the attachment of springs to the bottom of the body of a buggy or wagon, at the sides and crossing the bottom of the body, and connecting with the side-bars on the oppo· site sides of the body, are not void for want of novelty. Letters patent No. 239,850. issued April 1, 18&1. to Cyrus W. Saladee, for improvements in road-wagons, which consist of a spring platform of flexion springs arranged in pairs,-the inner, heavier ends of each pair being con· nected side by side to the central portion of the body or object supported, and the flexion portion of each spring curving downward from the center, and then upward to its connection with the spring,-are valid. . Letters patent No. 157,430, issued December 1,1874, described an improvement in vehie<les, consisting in the employment of two independent crossed leaf metal springs, the ends of which were rigidly secured to the opposite ends of a cross-piece attached· to the body, each spring- being formed or pro" vided with a socket, and the two sockets meeting each other at the center. of: the cross-piece. so as to enable the axis or pivot-bolt to be passed tllrough both sockets. etc. Reissued fetters patent, January 25, 1881, described each spring as "preferably" formed with a socket, and added a claim for two springs. in combination with the body and side-bars, crossing eachotheuide by side, and attached to the cross-piece. Held, that the reissue was not an enlargement; The foregoing patents are not anticipated by the compound couplings supporting the driver's seat. shown in President Washington's coach, as that was nothing'more than an old-fashioned thorough·brace, intended "to prevent as much as possihle the side, end. and upward pitching of the. SC1Lt. which it failed to accomplish, and which complainant's inventions do accomplish more effectually than anything that preceded them.
2,
SAME.
8.
SAME-REISSUE.
4.
SAME-ANTICIPA'l'ION-PItESlDENT WASHINGTON'S COACH.
In Equity.
Wm. M. Eccle8 and William Hubbell Fishe:r, for complainant. Wm. H. Doolittle and Goo. J. Murray, for defendants.
SAGE,J. The complainant's suit for infringement is based upon three patents. (1) No. 197 ,689, to Henry Timken, for improvement in carriagesprings, dated November 27,1877, application filed October 27, 1877: The invention consists, as stated in the specification, in the of springs to the bottom of the body of a buggy or wagon, at the sides, and .crossing the bottom of the body, and connecting with the side-bars opposite sides of the body. The claim is: . "In combination with the side-bars, C, C, and body, D, the springs, G, G, attached to the under side of the body at opposite sides, then crossing each other, and connected to the side-bars, at opposite sides, substantially as herein set forth." (2) No. 239,850,to CyrusW. Saladee, forimprovementsin road wagon, dated April!, 1881, application filed February.7, 1881. This invention
consists, according to the specification, of flexion springs, the inner ends of which terminate at and'artlatta6hed to ihebottom of the body, seat, or other object which they are to support, at or near its center, and their outer ends to 'the' side-bars Or frame on opposite sides. The claim is as follows: "A spring platform consisting of flexioru springs arranged in ,pairs, the inner, heavier ends of each pair being connected side by sideto the central portion of the body or object supported, and the tlElxion portion of each spring curving downward from the center, and then upward to its connection with the frame, all substantially as set forth." (3) No. 9,542, reissue to Joseph Tilton, Jan. 25, 1881, upon appliNov. 27,1880, (origil)al No. 157,430, dated Dec. 1,1874,) cation for spring for vehicles. The patentee sets forth in his specification that his invention consists in the empJoyment of two independent crossed leaf metal springs, the ends of which are rigidly secured to the opposite attached to the body, each spring preferably being ends fanned 01' provided with a socket, and the two sockets meeting each other at. the center of the cross-piece attached to the body, so as to enable an axis or pivot bolt to be passed through both sockets for enabling the springs to turn thereon when the body is elevated or depressed. A further feature of the invention consists in securing a bearing and ing plate of metal to the under side of the cross-piece attached to the body, said plate being provided with pendent flaIlges at both ends. to serve as bearing points for the ends of the springs, in order to prevent any lateral movement of the same, and to serve, in connection with fastening bolts, to securely hold tlle spritlgs inplacc. The claims are as follllws: "(1) 'l'he:combh'lation of two springs, each composed of one or more leaves, and hinged togetherHt their crossing points, and provided with all eye at one end to connect with the side-sills of the running gear, and at the other end connected wlth a cross-piece attached to tlJebody of the vehicle, substantially as described. (2) The two leaf springs, each provided with a socket at tllPir crossing in <;ombination with a pivot or axis bolt. substantially as described. (3) The cumbination of springs, side by side, and connected together, with the side sills, and cross-pit'ce. fur supporting the body in a horizontal positi,on between the side-sills, substantially as described. (4) The reenfdl'cingbearillg plate, I, haVing end flilnges, in combination with the crosspiece attached to the body, and the connpcLed cross-springs, substantially as (5) In comhi,nation with ,the body of a vebicle and the side-sills or two, spl'ings crossing other side by side, and attached to a cross", piece, subs.tantially as described:. " -".i ,-,.;,.,::.;, -.'.
i'l'he 'filton and Saladee patents became. by assignment, the pr0perty of 'the complainant; the Tilton patent on the 22<1 March, 1881, and the Baladee pn the 8th of December, 1884. A careful examination of the record has oonfirmed the impressiotl' made by the very full and complete argument /ttthe hearing, and bas brought the court to the following conelusions:'" 1. Tl;1e combination patented toTirpken displays invention. It is not artticipllted by any of th¢'devicesinevidellce for the defendants. Tl:Jis view: is strOllg1y ore-enforced' by the fact, found from the record, of the
TIMKEN
OLIN.
207
recognition of the invention by the trade, and thelarge andJong . continued demand for i t . · , 2·. The Saladee patent displays invention and is valjd. 3; The Tilton reissued pl\tent is valid. The the word in the specification did not invalidate the reissue, nor did the a(Jdjtion of the fifth claim. " ' .· .' . 4., The; defendant infringes the Timken patent, the Saladee pat Jnt, and , the second, third, and fifth claims of the Tilton reissue patent. The decree. ,will be accordingly, for .an injunction and M¢ount,with oosts. . ON APpmCATION FOR REHEARING.
(October
2, 1888.)
Because the court, respondingtO'the requellt of counsel for an early decision, limited the opinion to a statement of conclusions, counsel for defendants erroneously infer that the state of the ,art preceding the inventions and patents sued llpop,and'the patents introduced in evidence as anticipating the:comand therefore. proceed to reargue the points plainants, were which' they argued at length orally on the hearing, and, also in .their printed briefs. As to the proposition that lithe defeqdautswere led to believe from ihetestimony introduced by complainant in rebuttal that the THtonand Saladee patents would npt ,pe relied upon at the hearing, and were there.fore taken by surprise," .there are twoanswerSi: Fir8t. They were,bound 10 anticipate and be prepared for every point that could be mad.e upon the eyideijcej and, 8econd, upon their, request they were given time to prepare, aq,d were allowed to ,file an ad<;litional .brief after the hearing, thereby baviI).g ample opportunity to recoverfroID/the surprise; tQ which 'theY:Cll11Iwtnow be allowed to appeal fora rehearing. The ¢ourtis not djsposed to respond favorably to the appeal of counsel th,at it' will, in passing upon the petition for rehearing, enter into the ofthe record, and prepare a full opinion. That would be in the line a bad and mischievous precedent; and in view of the brieffileli by counsljll for defendant, rearguing the entire cause, it would be, in effect, granting the rehearing, while in terms denying it. The ,court h\>wever, say that .it rejected the te8timony of the witness . PrieSjt as altogether the record making itc1ear, not only that ,he contradicted himself on material points, under circumstances causing .,his contradictory statements to amount to impell,chment, but also that in ..a prior litigation betweencolllplainant and parties other thlln these defendaQts, and,involvingthe patents in suit in this CllQSe, he was in the ..marketas a witness for sale to either side. , SihcetllefiJing of the petitjon for rehearing·.1;he court h/;\8,upon defendan1is'. tlpplication, opened th,e.testimony, and ,permitted theJIl'to offer :8 lI,Ild exhibits relating to a devicewhicp JbeYolaimanticipates,' or at least limits, each of the patents in suit. This is President
SAGE, J. This is not a'case for
will.
208
FEDERAL REPORTER.
Washington's coach, which was sold to a relic collector of New Y0rk city at some time between the date of the death of President Washington and the year 1870, as a coach which he used in his life-time. It was exhibited as a relic at Wood's Museum in Philadelphia, in 1855, at the Oentennial Exposition at Philadelphia in 1876, and at the Oentennial Exposition at Oolumbus, Ohio, in the fall of 1888. The complainant visited the Oentennial Exposition at Philadelphia, but he testifies that he did not see or hear of this coach then, nor at any other time until the fall of 1888. The defendants insist that the compound couplings supporting the driver's seat, and the frame-work to which their light ends connect, anticipate, or at least limit, each of the patents sued upon. Each of these couplings is composed of. two steel leaves, the lower one of which is slightly curved up at the end, and of a long leather strap. The curve of the lower steel leaf, at its end, is to prevent its 'cutting into the leather strap in its action. There is also near the end , of the lower steel leaf a metal loop, fastened to and passing over the steel, and then down under and around the leather strap, loosely enough to permit its play back and forth, and to permit the leaves also to move back and fdrth when the coupling was in action. The leather strap, which is long and heavy, is attached to the driver's seat, at the same points where the steel parts of the coupling are attached. At the other or outer end it is attached to the side of the frame-work already referred to, by passing around its'ertd, and forming a loop. Doubling back on itself, it is confined or held together by bolts provided with thumb-nuts and metal washers. The stl'apisprovided with holes adapted to receive the bolts, and so located' as to permit tightening, whenever that might be necessary, as it is stated in the stipulation, "toprevi:mt, as much as , possible, the side, end, and upward pitching of the seat." Without entering further into details, the last expression qtloted above from the stipulation is the key to the radical difference between this coupling and the invention covered by cotliplainant's patents. They are surprisingly alike in appearance, as shown by photographs, but the coupling is nothing more than an old-fashioned thorough-brace, long since out of date, and discarded from general use. The trouble with it is, or was, that it would not prevent the pitching oithe seat upwards' arid sideways and endways. Thecomplainant's inventions do prevent that very thing, and that,too, more effectually than anything that preceded them. They 'havebeen for many years recognized as valuable and ,Patentable inven,. tiona by practically the entire body of carriage makers in the United states; who have paid in royalties to the complainant for their use more What better confirmation is needed of the proposition that there is something more than skill or mere adaptation in the come plainant's impl'OVemellts? The decree as indicated by the opinion on file will be entered for an injunction and account, that by mis-take the second, third, and fifth claims of the Tilton reissued patent are "specified as the claims infringed,instead of the tHird, fourth, and fifth claims, which are 'those infringed. ' The decree will be accordingly.
THE GILBERT
KNAPP.
209
MYGATT
et al. v.
TH]l: GILBERT KNAPP.
, (Diatrict Oourt. E .. D, WiaconBin.
January 7, 1889.)
ADMIRA,LTY-JURISDIOTION-CONTRACT WITH STEVEDORE.
A claim for services rendered by a stevedore in loading a v,es· sel is a maritiIJ;le contract, within the principles of admiralty jurisdictIon. Butnq lien on the vessel Is allowed in admiralty for such services rendered in theb()me port. ' ,
2, MARITIME LIEN-SERVICES OF STEVEDORE IN HOME PORT.
, 3. ,
,
SAME-BREACH OF CONTRACT.
The breach of an executory contract with a stevedore to unload a vessel at her home port is within :Rev. St. Wis. § 3348, subd. 3, giving a lien on vessels .. for all demands 01;' damages accruing from the non-performance or malperformance of ' * any contract touching the transportation of persons or property, » etc. ' Libelants claimed a contract to unload four cargoes. The making of suchcontract was denied. When about to unload the third, they were prevented by respondents, who 'had hired another gang for that purpose: All parties tinally went to the managingowner, where it wall agreed" as a peace measure, that libelants should unload that cargo, and that the rival gang shol1ld be allowed to unload the fourth. Held that, if libelants had any contract to unload all four cargoes, they waived it by the new agreement.
'" SAME-WAIVER OF CONTRACT.
In Admiralty. Libel by Beauregard Mygatt and Ellis Leas against the schooner Gilbert Knapp, for damages for breach of contract to unload cargo. ' O. T. Willia/rna, for libelants. {Jharles Quarles, for respondents. JENKINS, J. In noted case of De Lomo v. Bait, 2 Gall. 398, an action in personam upon a marine policy of insurance, decided in 1815, that eminent jurist, Judge STORY, delivered an elaborate opinion concerning the jurisdiction of the admiralty. In a masterly review of the decisions of the English common-law courts seeking to restrict that jurisdiction, he showed them to be irreconcilable with any just conception of the admiralty jurisdiction. He challenged the limitation applied by those courts that jurisdiction extended only to causes of action arising "from things done upon the sea," and asserted the true limitation to be "to things pertaining to the sea." He held that the delegation by the constitution to the judicial power of the United States of all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction "comprehended all marine contracts, whether made or to be executed on land or sea, which relate to the navigation, business, or commerce of the sea." This doctrine was not finally established by the ultimate judicial authority without conflict. It encountered censure and opposition from both bench and bar. Chancellor Kent, (1 Kent. Comm. 370, note,)indeed, refers to insurance as a thing of settled admiralty jurisdiction; but no less an authority than Chief Justice TANEY, in Taylor: Y. Oarryl, 20 How. 615, decided in 1857, characterized the v.o7F.no.5-14