infringement of three letters patent. cree. Complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Defendants obtained a de

The opinion of the circuit court, filed September 28, 1891, was as follows:

Suit for infringement of three patents: The first one in order is No. 238,352, dated May 23, 1882. Infringement is charged of the second claim only, which is in these words: "In a vertical wind wheel, the casting, E, in which the wheel is journaled, and which is curved laterally so as to throw the wheel shaft out of line with the vane, and thus enable it to swing around out of the wind, substantially as shown." The second patent to be considered is reissue No. 10,834, granted May 10, 1887. Infringement is charged of claims 6, 7, and 8, which are in these words: "(6) The combination, with the casting having a tubular spindle projecting therefrom, provided with annular grooves and openings leading from the bore through to the outer side, and an oil cup located at the inner end of the spindle, and communicating with its bore, of the wheel hub having an enlarged axial opening to receive said spindle, and the wheel shaft fastened in the outer end of the hub, and extended through the spindle, and connected with the pump rod, whereby oil from said oil cup lubricates the wheel shaft and the wheel hub, substantially as described. (7) The combination, with the casting having a tubular spindle provided with annular grooves and radial openings extending from its bore, of the wheel hub having an enlarged axial opening to receive the tubular spindle, the shaft keyed to the outer end of the hub and passed through the spindle, with the enlarged axial opening, and lubricating said hub and shaft, substantially as described. (8) The combination with the casting having a tubular spindle projected therefrom provided with annular grooves and radial openings, and an oil cup located at the inner end of the spindle and communicating with its bore, of the wheel hub having an enlarged axial opening to receive the spindle, the shaft keyed to the outer end of the hub and passed through the spindle, and the oil reservoirs, disposed around the hub, and communicating with the large opening, substantially as described, and for the purpose specified." The third patent embraced in the bill is No. 362,870, dated May 10, 1887. Infringement is charged of claims 1, 2, 3, and 4, which are as follows: "(1) In a wind engine, the combination, with the wheel-supporting casting having a tubular spindle projecting laterally therefrom, of the wheel mounted on said spindle, which spindle projects about an equal distance on each side of the plane of the wheel, and the wheel shaft journaled within the spindle, having the outer end keyed to revolve with the wheel, and having the inner end connected with the pump rod, substantially as and for the purpose described. (2) In a wind engine, the combination, with the wheel-supporting casting and the tubular spindle projecting lat rally therefrom, having a bearing formed at its inner end of less diameter than the bore of said spindle, of the wheel mounted upon the spindle, the wheel shaft passing through the bore of said spindle keyed to the outer end of the hub of the wheel, and journaled at its inner end in said bearing, the crank, the pump rod, and suitable connections between the crank and pump rod, substantially as set forth. (3) In a wind engine, the combination of the wheelsupporting casting having a tubular extension projecting therefrom, and having a bore in line with the extension, the inner end of which is enlarged, forming a recess, a sleeve having a bore of less diameter than the bore of the tubular extension, seated in the recess, leaving a space between the bottom of the recess and the inner end of the sleeve, the wheel hub mounted on the tubular extension, and a shaft keyed to the hub and projecting through said extension, and having a bearing in the sleeve, substantially as described. whereby the sleeve may be replaced without necessitating the removal of the wheel from its bearing, substantially as set forth. (4) In a win engine, the combination of the wheel-supporting casting having a tubular spindle projecting laterally therefrom, the wheel mounted thereon, and having the spindle projecting about an equal distance on each side of the plane of the wheel, the two series of radial lubricating boxes, one series being located on one side of the plane of the wheel, the other series on the other side of

the plane of the wheel, the boxes of one series alternating with the boxes of the other series, the wheel shaft keyed to the outer end of the wheel hub, passing through the spindle and lubricated by said boxes, that portion of the shaft on each side of the plane of the wheel being lubricated by its respective set of boxes, substantially as set forth."

These claims, both by reason of the prior art, and on account of the minute and numerous details of description used, are necessarily extremely narrow, and show invention, if at all, only in the specific forms of construction and combination described; and, this being so, the evidence does not show infringement, unless it be of the first and second claims of patent No. 362,870. If those claims are valid, it is conceded that they have been infringed. Their validity, however, is denied; and in view of patent No. 217,125, issued to C. Lohnes, and Nos. 233,178 and 244,968, issued to J. S. Adams, it is clear that they are void of invention. The only feature of novelty as· serted for the first claim is that the spindle on which the wheel is mounted "projects about an equal distance on each side of the plane of the wheel," and, for the second claim, the novelty is supposed to be in "the tubular spindle * * having a bearing formed at its inner end of less diameter than the bore of the spindle." Neither of these things are new, and there was no invention in introducing them into the combinations described. It follows that the bill should be dismissed for want of equity.

C. P. Jacobs and V. H. Lockwood, for appellant.
R. S. Taylor, for appellees.

Before GRESHAM, Circuit Judge, and BUNN and JENKINS, District Judges.

PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from is affirmed upon the grounds stated in the opinion of the court below.

PALMER et al. v. MILLS et al.

(Circuit Court, D. Connecticut. June 29, 1893.)

No. 728.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

QUILTING

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS · VALIDITY

FABRICS. Letters patent No. 308,981 and No. 308,982, issued December 9, 1884, to Frank L. Palmer, are for improvements for stitching comfortables by machinery. Owing to the commercial advantages given by these patents, complainants, who owned them, were enabled to practically command the entire business of this country in this kind of quilts. The validity of the patents had never been denied, except by one other party who, after suit brought for infringement, compromised the same, and has ever since paid a royalty. Held, that on an application for preliminary injunction, where infringement was plain, the patents would be presumed to be valid, and the injunction granted, unless defendants gave a sufficient bond to secure any damages decreed against them.

In Equity. Bill by Frank L. Palmer and others against Crefeld Mills and others for infringement of patents. On motion for preliminary injunction. Order allowing injunction unless bond be given.

E. H. Brown, for complainants.

J. E. Maynadier, for defendants.

TOWNSEND, District Judge. This is a motion for a preliminary injunction restraining the infringement of claims 14 and 24 of letters patent No. 308,981, and of claims 2, 3, 4, 12, and 15, of letters patent No. 308,982, granted to Frank L. Palmer, December 9, 1884, for sewing or quilting fabrics. The following facts appeared upon the hearing: The complainants' patents provide for a novel and useful mode of stitching comfortables by machinery. The commercial advantages of these improvements have enabled complainants to practically command the entire business of this country in this class of quilts. No one has heretofore disputed the validity of said patents, except the R. T. Palmer Company. Complainants brought suit against said company, and said suit was settled by the grant of a shop right in consideration of the payment of a royalty. Said agreement is still in force, and said royalty has been annually paid. A comparison of the machines of defendants with those of complainants shows them to be substantially the same. If the sewing machine of complainants' model, while in operation upon its quilt, be grasped and held fast, and the pattern be allowed to move, the model becomes the working model of defendants' machine, performing the same functions in the same way, with the same result.

The only vital question in the case is as to the validity of complainants' patents, in view of the prior state of the art. But, in view of the considerations already suggested, it seems that said patents should be assumed to be valid upon this hearing. As was said by Judge Lacombe in Sessions v. Gould, 49 Fed. Rep. 856:

"The contention that, in view of the prior state of the art, they do not disclose any patentable invention, is not sufficiently clear and convincing to overthrow the case made out by the patents themselves, and the public acquiescence in their validity. The defense of prior public use should not be disposed of on ex parte affidavits, but reserved for final hearing."

There is nothing in the case to show that complainants will not be sufficiently protected by a suitable bond. They have already granted to their only other competitor a license to make and use machines embodying the improvements claimed in said patents. One of the defendants, whose financial responsibility is unquestioned, has offered to give such bond as may be required for all damages, profits, and costs which may be decreed against either the individual defendants, or the defendant corporation. There can be no irreparable damage, in such a case, where the value of the royalty can be ascertained, provided the responsibility of defendants is guarantied.

Let an order be entered, granting a preliminary injunction, unless the defendants shall, within 10 days, file a satisfactory bond for $10,000, conditioned for the payment of any final money decree which may be rendered in favor of complainants.

NATIONAL FOLDING BOX & PAPER CO. v. PHOENIX PAPER CO., Limited, et al.

(Circuit Court, E..D. New York. May 18, 1893.)

1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-PRIOR ADJUDICATIONS.

In a suit for infringement of a patent, where it appears that the courts of other circuits have already sustained the validity of the patent as against all the defenses now made save that of anticipation by reason of certain patents not before in evidence, and have also found that defendants infringed, the court will accept those decisions, and examine only the anticipation alleged.

2. SAME-VALIDITY-ANTICIPATION-PAPER BOXES.

Letters patent No. 171,866, issued January 4, 1876, to Reuben Ritter for an improvement in paper boxes, were not anticipated by prior inventions, and are valid.

In Equity., Suit by the National Folding Box & Paper Company against the Phoenix Paper Co., Limited, and others, for infringement of a patent. Decree for complainant.

Walter D. Edmonds, for complainant.

Billings & Cardozo, (R. B. McMaster, of counsel,) for defendants.

BENEDICT, District Judge. This is an action founded upon the second claim of letters patent No. 171,866, dated January 4, 1876, issued to Reuben Ritter, for an improvement in paper boxes. The patent has expired. The main defense in the case is a defect in title, although the defenses of lack of novelty in invention and noninfringement are set up in the answer. The patent has been several times examined by the courts of the United States, and the question of the validity of the patent has been passed upon by this court. See Box Co. v. Nugent, 41 Fed. Rep. 139; National Folding Box & Paper Co. v. American Paper Pail & Box Co., 48 Fed. Rep. 913, 51 Fed. Rep. 229. Moreover, the infringement here complained of has been before the circuit court of New Jersey, and also before the circuit court of the southern district of New York. The question of title raised in this case has also been passed upon by the circuit court for the scuthern district of New York. National Folding Box & Paper Co. v. American Paper Pail & Box Co., 55 Fed. Rep. 488. Under these circumstances, the only question open for consideration on this occasion is whether certain patents set up in this case, which were not set up in the former cases, can affect the decision. At the argument these patents were not seriously relied upon, as it seemed to me, and upon examination I find nothing in them which impugns the validity of the patent. In regard to the title of the complainant in the patent in question, my opinion coincides with that of Judge Coxe, who examined the question.

There must be a decree for the complainant for an accounting.

NORWEGIAN STEAMSHIP CO. v. WASHINGTON. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. June 20, 1893.)

No. 136.

1. MARITIME LIENS-STEVEDORE'S SERVICES-PRESUMPTIONS.

The services of a stevedore in stowing cargo in other than the home port are services of a maritime nature, and the presumption is that they were rendered on the credit of the vessel.

2. SAME-CHARTER PARTY.

The mere fact that a vessel is under charter by a charter party which makes the charterers liable for the expenses of loading and unloading is not sufficient to exempt the vessel from liability to one who renders services as a stevedore at the request of one whom he supposes to be the owner's or charterer's agent. The burden is on the vessel to show that the stevedore had knowledge of the terms of the charter party. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

In Admiralty. Libel by Frederick S. Washington against the steamship Kong Frode (the Norwegian Steamship Company of the South, claimant) to recover for services rendered as a stevedore. There was a decree for libelant, and the claimant appeals. Affirmed.

Statement by LOCKE, District Judge:

The steamship the Kong Frode, owned by the appellant herein, a corporation of Christiana, Norway, was on the 9th of November, 1891, chartered by the United States & Honduras Trading Company for the term of 12 calendar months. The charter party provided that the owners should appoint the master, provide the crew, and pay for all provisions and wages; the charterers to pay for coals, fuel, port charges, pilotages, and all other charges whatsoever, and £700 sterling per month for her use and hire. Before this charter had expired, the charterer, the United States & Honduras Trading Company, rechartered her to Ross, Howe & Merrow, of New Orleans, to load three cargoes of general merchandise to Havana and other ports in Cuba at charterers' option. By this charter party the charterers were to pay freight at fixed rates per sack or bushel; "the vessel to pay for stevedoring, and all other customary charges on cargo." While loading under this charter, the libelant, as he alleges, was hired and employed by the master to load and properly stow the cargo into the steamship, and did load and properly stow the cargo, which, at the agreed rates for which lading and stowing was done, amounted to $369.75. Upon the presentation of the bill the master signed the same, "attesting" it. Upon presenting the bill to the firm whom the libelant supposed to be the agents of the vessel, and at whose place of business.-the master being present,--he had made the agreement to perform the work, payment was refused, and he commenced suit against the steamship in an action in rem. The master gave bonds for the release of his vessel, and filed exceptions to the libel, which being overruled, an answer was filed, admitting that libelant was hired and employed to perform the services charged, and that he did properly store the said cargo, but denies that the price was the agreed price, or that any agreement for price was made, but that the price charged was exorbitant and excessive, and more than the services of libelant were worth, and averring, further, that the steamship was at the time under a time charter, and the services of the stevedore were to be paid for by the charterers, and that the libelant had full knowledge of these facts at the time he performed the services.

The testimony showed that the first charterers, Messrs. Andress & Mitchel under the name of the United States & Honduras Trading Company, had put their business as charterers into the hands of Hoadly & Co., of New Or