.ohby contract to pay intetest; ,and in the absence poqecan xecoveret;l against,the accounts or claims against it, although they an&,hfl\'8',been"allowedbythellreasury department. U. S. v. Bayard, 260, 8 Sup. 'Ct. Rep. 1156, and authorities there cited; TilTiJcJny, U.S., 100 U.S.43;,47. 'INotonly was there no stipulation to Miinterest on the part orthe,tJnited $tates,anq no statute izing its payment in the case at bar, but when it 18 considered that, £Qe act of congress which permits the maintenance of this suit against the United States gave, original thereof t,o t):1,e courtof claims, and concurrent jurisdiction to the court below, section 109,1 ()f the Revised Statutes, in effect, prohibits the allowance of any interest upon such a claim as plaintiff's until it is reduced to judgment. That section reads,: "No interest shall 9:e alJmyedona,nY claim up to the time of the renditiOtl of the judgment theretor by the court of Claiins, unless upon a contract expressly stipulating for tbe payment of interest." The is that the court below committed no error in the rulings of which plaintiff plains. and the. judgment below ,is ,affirmed. 3. In of any

STANDARD

Co. v.

No. 2.727.

OsGOOD

et

at.

(Circuit Court, D. Mass/lchusetts. June 3D, 1892.)

PATBNTII FOB INVENTIONll-LutlITATION OF CloAIM-COMBINATION-FoLtHNG BEllS.

Claim 1 of letters patent No. 397,766, issued February 12, 11>89. to Lyman W. Welch, for a folding bed, covers a combination whereby tbe bead of the bed is carried in suspension by means of cords running over pulleys attached to the uprigbt casing, each cord being fastened at one end to a lever crank, which is pivoted to the bed rail and attadbed at its lower end to a rod running to the leg of the bed, Whereby the legs are folded downward as the bed is raised, the head of the bed meanwbile sWinging inward and downward as the frame is folded up. Held that, as this method of transmitting an eccentric motion to the legs is common in the arts, and as there is little novelty in suspending instead of supporting the head of the bed, the claim must be strictly limited to the combination in detail, and is not infringed by a bed w1;lich is supported at the head by rods fastened at their upper ends to the uprightc8sings, pivoted below to the bed rail, and projecting downward and connected at their lower ends to the legs of the bed, so that the resultant motion is like that described in the patent.

In Equity. Bill by the Standard Folding-Bed Company against CharlesE. Osgood and others for infringement o{letters patent Nos. 311,623 and 397,766, issued to Lyman W. Welch, February 3,1885, and February 12, 1889, respectively, for folding beds. Decree disIllisl:ling the bill. At the hearing the issue was really upon claim 1 of the later patent. As to the feature covered by this claim the inventor says: ' "The object of my present invention is, in part. to prOVide the foot of the bed with automatically operating IE'gs.-that is to say. with legswhie;h automatically fold in wllen tile bed is,. turned up. and which automatically turn out into position to serve as suppu'rts when the bed is pulled down."

676

FEDERAL REPORTEB,vol.

51.

In the specifications he describes this invention as follows :
',"()n the sfdeof the bed rail is pivotally mounted a lever-like crank, c. to ODe ebdof which is attached the end of the chain or connector, 0, and to the other end ,is attached a link or bar, E, which is coupled at ltsotber end to one of the connected legs, D. end of chain,C, is attached to the bed pl'Qper. B. There will be or may be c, and bar, E, on each 8ide ,Qed, proper, B, hi order that, botll" the connected legs may be acted of Oli..rmll,ltantlously, but the arrangement will be the same as that described in aily dase. '

...

b1

·rl

I

"

,

-'

.:

.\

l

t

'I

i

.. ,

.....

;

·

." .or,;..

c:;;o-:

m,'

...

i

'';e

\.,'

C .....

\.

,.

,

..

·-t- .

III

;C

1""'- \II

,.

I"

r4

I

..;.- .. C'

..

f',

...

l\l

.,

III

e

I

-

til

bi

..... .'-;,-

n_ .. _..·

.',; :

..

-

tl

STANDARD FOLDING-BED CO. 11. OSGOOD.

677

.... The operation of this device will be understood by noting the two positions of the parts as represented in Figs. 1 and 2. When the bed is lowerfld to the position seen in Fig. I, the chain, C, holds the legs, D, through the medium of crank, c, and bar, E, in a position to support the bed; but when the bed, B. is turned up, the crank sWings on its pivot, and folds the legs in. In reality the swinging of the legs is only relative. They always stand .substantially in the same position with respect to the floor. When the bed. B. is turned down, the mO\'ement of the parts is reversed, and the same instI'umentalities cause the legs to swing out to the position seen in Fig. 1,. ,The strain of the chain, C, keeps the crank lever constantly aligned with portion of the chain to which it is attached in all positions of the bed ,proper. This imparts the proper amount of movement to the lever to cause it to hold the legs in their position, perpendicular to the floor, while the bed proper is being raised and lowered. I am aware that it is not new to provide a fold. ing bed with automatic devices whereby the legs are operated by the move· ment of the bed; but these are constructed differently from that herein de. scribed, aud are not adapted to a bed suspended in the manner described herein... Claim 1 reade as follows: "The combination with the standard and bed proper of the crank lever. c, pivotally mounted at its middie to the face of the bed the suspending chain or connector, C, secured at one end to the bed proper, and at the other end to one end of the said crank lever, the legs, D, hinged to the bed and the rod. E, connecting tM other end of said crank lever' with the legs, D, said parts being.respectively. arranged as shown. whereby said crank lever is held at all times aligned with.that portion of the connector to which it is attached." Respondents' machine was a combination folding bedstead 'havingn wardrobe or bookcase construction in front, and a folding bed, in·the back. The side rails of the bed frame were supported at the head by a rod or bar on each side, pivoted at the top to the upright casing, and near the bottom to the side rail. Each bar projected downard, beyond the point at which it was pivoted to the rail, and was pivoted at its end to another rod, which was fastened at its opposite end to the foot leg. The foot legs were pivoted to the foot of the bed. As the bed frame was raised, the head swung inward and downward, the ends of the rails having wheels attached to them which rolled downward on a curved track, to the floor, the foot legs being drawn inward, meanwhile, ·by·the rods connecting them with the ends of the suspending bars. Edward T. Rice, Jr., for complainant. John H. Whipple, for defendants.
PUTNAM, Circuit Judge. I have great doubts what my decision ought to be in this case, but, on the whole, I am better satisfied with the following conclusions than with any other. The invention owned by the complainant, as specifically set out in the first claim of the patent, which claim alone is in issue, appears ingenious, novel, simple, and useful.' To sustain this bill,however, or to find that on the proofs respondents are infringers, would, I think, require me to hold that complainant monopolizes, in combination with an inward and downward movement of a suspended head of the bed, every method of transmitting an eccen-

tric thle'legs of the same,bedVSuch 'trails· :mission' is'sonoornmon to':aIHhiea:.ris' as to cause ilie toconC!ude this is T 'fnvsfieep' the com t' stl-tctly to the described'iidts patElllt;' so faras touches the case. ',:- ,,;, I ' '''; , Combinatiqne ofan inwardand,downward movement of the head of the bed, with;leverssoarranged as to transmit to th'e]egs the wmlt of this movemellit'fol' the' purpose of setting or folding the,m" seem to have long inyention ,owribd by the complainant; and the introduction elern,eut, of suspending supporting the bed, to me to involve such degree of noveltyllS to sustain 8nyclaims except very narrow'ones. The inventor's: merit in the case at; bar relates only' to the' 'preCise method used by him ,to ,secure compactness ,and simplicity. Therefore, while the plaintitit is, of course, entitled to the benefit of the rule of equivalents, they must be such as relate to details, excluding ,such as concern broad principles well known in many branches of the mechanical arts. ',All'it lanot denied that'respondel1tsmay laVliful1y carry the head of suspensio,ni :8110 combine with that the inward and downin wpich they do each, I think I by ordinary applianceS,and :that.theyhaJe,donenomorethan this. The cases cited by ma,in: Masten!v. llunt,iolFed. and Dederick v. Seigmund, 51 Fed. Rep. 233, seem of use here. Let respondents draw a decree of dismissal.; :withcosts" and· Btlbmit it to the eourt, with proof that it has been served on, the complainant.

HUNT '11. GARSED.

PA,TIllIi'l'8

Letters patent No. granted October 21, 1884, to John Hunt for an impro\'ement in pneumatio conductors. t,or signals,are invalid, for there is no patentable novelty in inclosing a number of rubbeJ;' tUbes, each individually commullicating with the signalinl{ mechanism in an elentor and with one of the floors of a building, in a jacket to keep them from kinkinl{, stretchinl{, and breaking, wben wires used signaling in elevators had been inclosed in the same way ·alid fol.' the and tubes had previously been usedior operating lIignaling mech!lnism in elevators. '

NALS.

.

PN,UJUTIO CONIlUOTOIlS FOR ELEVATOR BIG

In Equity. ,Suit by John Hunt against Robert P. Garsed to restrain the, i,n,fnngement, of letters ,patent No. 307,049, of October 21 t 1884, grantedtQ complainant. Bill dismissed, and patent declared invalid. A. S. Browne, for complainant. A. B. HOV1Jhto.,., for defendant.