. 'Mottss
v.
351'
being impelled' forward' by the 'draft, they meet a extending doWn from the robf' of 'the chamber; and are thtown 'down to the upper surface of the protecting arch, where they come in contact with a surface heated by the direct action Again impelled fQrward's, they, strike ranother p9:mtionj 'are thrown upwards, and then, upon reaching the ¥>p of the chamber, are litg!,\in diverted downwards, and again upwards, until they through cbiqmeyssituated at the forward ends of the apparatus. I do not plaGe any stress upon the fact that two fur. naces are used in defendant's and only one in plaintiff's apparatus; but for other reasons 1 cannot consider .the former as substantially the same structure Jis the latter. , The use of vertical, instead ofhorizontal, parti. tions has the of changing the method of heating the retort. The ip the case of the vertical partitions immediately surround the upper as well as the lower part of .the retort, while under thftStanlypatentthey pass under the entire length of the retort .before :reaching its upper Again, the heat in defendant's apparatus, after lilurrounding both the lower and upper part of the retort, is.twice thrown down against the lower hot arch, where its temperature may be renewed. Again,tb,e flames in defendant's furnace are diverted froIll' the retort lfljlen they first emerge from under the arch, instead of directly iJ;Dpillging upon: it, a fact '\thich tends to increase its durability. These are, it would seem, sufficient to relieve defendant from the, ch4rge upon the plaintiff's method of producing the re,sult at, anp The result itself! do not consider !!overed by either patent. , :I;baveJ.a.id no stress on the alleged tests, to which so much teetimony ¥J Defen(}ant's trial was ex parte. In ,that of plaintiff the facts tbat}lO damper the smoke-stack of defendant's apparatus, a.J)d used in it was 20 per cent. lighter than that used in plaintiff's deprive the tests of all title to The bill is " ,
MoRSS".
KNAPP
et JanUary 115. 1889.)
{Oi,.cUit (J01J/ft; D; Oonnect:icut.
PATENT8 FOR bVENTIONS-.....: .JNFRnrGEMENT-DRES8-'OlUlS.,
In the dev,ice letters patent No. 23l!,240, to Jqhn Hall. dated October 12. 1880. for an adjustable dress-form, the upper of two sedesof op", ip.Il!illecl braces , their inner ends to an adj usti'bl& qollar ..l1oll,d, are hinged to the re'spectlve ribs. The braces of the lower eerlesare hmged to a lower adjust" able collar, and, extending obliquely upward, are hinged to the ribs at the point of hinging of the upper series. The expansion of the form is effected .by: the l<?wer and 4s ,the opposinp; alltion of. the uppe;rillllr16S.)" ejalm 2· IS for the double and rests, in combinatdonwith,1.bie&tandard,and ribs. substantially for the purpose set forth." Held ," inbinged by a: fo.\'m having-a series of braciesextending obliquely dawnwa.rd on' t.hestlindaratothe:ribs to which they are, hinged. to frolJt
852
FEDERAL REPORTER.
which braces. midway- of their length, arehfnged an,other series of bralies extending thence obliquely upward at a dilferent angle to a higher and stationary collar.!
In Equity. On motion for an attachment. The suit is by Charles A. Morss against William H. and Charles L. Knapp, to restrain the infringement of a patent. Charles F. Perkins and Paysan E.Tucker, for complainant. John K. Beach and John Dane, Jr., for defendants· . SHIPMAN, J. This is amotion for attachment oC the defendants for contempt of this court, by reason of the alleged violation of its final degranted at the April term, 1888, whereby they were enjoined against the infringement of the second claim of letters patent No. 233,240, to John Hall, dated October 12, 1880, for an adjustable dress-form. In the suit of the present plaintiff against Ufford et al.,upon this patent, before the circuit court for the district of Massachusetts, Judge COLT sustained' the validity of said claim, and granted an injunction against its infringement. 34 Fed. Rep. 37. The defendants in this case were the real defendants in the Massachusetts case. The Uffords were their agents and were nominal parties. When this case for the same infringement was reached in this court,2 (the counsel being the same as in the Massachusetts case,) no argument was made, as it was known that I regarded the questions as already adjudicated between the parties by the final decree in the First circuit. The question of infringement in both caSeS turned upon the equivalence of the defendants' devices with the sliding blocks a.nd the rests of the Hall patent. Thereupon the defendants modifiedtheir form with respect to the braces, which werenot in dispute 'in the original case, and placed the new form upon the market. The plaina bill in equity. in the First circuit against the Domestiff then tic Sewing-Machine Company, which had hecomethe defendants' selling agents for this new alleged infringement of the same claim of the patent,' and upon motion for a preliminary injunction, and after hearing, Judge COLT, on August 4, 1888, granted the motion. s The sewing-machine company was notified of the injunction order on August 25th. In that case, also, the Knapps r.eal defendants, and had knowledge ot
'Same p\tent in"olved in Morss v Mll.Dchester. 32 Fed. Rep. 289'Not reported. See 85 Fed. Rep. 218.
In Equity. On motion for a preliminary injunction. Suit by Charles A. Morss against the Domestio Sewing-Machine Company, to restrain the infringement of letters patent No. 238,240, issued to John Ball, October 12, 1880, for improvements in dress-forms. O. F. Per1Wns and P. E. Tucker, for oomplainant. John Dane, for defendant. COLT, J. This is a motion for a preliminary injunction.' In Morss v. Utrord, 84 Fed. Rep. 87, this court, upon final hearing, sustained the validity of the secona claim of the Hall patent of October12, 1880, for improvements In dreSS-forms, and held that defendants infringed. It does not appear to be denied that the real party in interest as defendant in, that suit was the present defendant, who is the 1lO1e or principal, agent for
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Massachusetts.
'MORSS "'. DOMESTIC SilWING-MAoHINB
Co.
AUgUst 4, 1888.)