ant's route and railway;" and on the ninth of September, 1873, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract under seal, whereby, in consideration that the plaintiff would, during the season of navigation in 1876 and 1877, run between Buffalo and Green Bay, by way of the great lakes, and touching at intermediate ports, two steampropellers, then belonging to the plaintiff, for the purpose of carrying passengers and freight to and from Green Bay in connection with the defendant's railway and business and docks at that place, the defendant duly undertook and guarantied to the plaintiff that the gross earnings of each propeller in such business should be for each of the two years the sum of $45,000 at least, and that if it should be less, the defendant would pay the difference to the plaintiff on or before the first of January next succeeding the close of navigation in each year.

The plaintiff further alleges that it duly put the propellers on the route and kept them running thereon, in connection with the defendant's business and in accordance with the contract, during the seasons of 1876 and 1877, and in all respects duly performed all the conditions of the contract on its part; that the gross earnings of each propeller for each season fell short of the amount guarantied by a certain sum named, which thereupon became due and payable to the plaintiff from the defendant, according to the contract on the first of January following; and that the two corporations were duly authorized and empowered by their respective charters and the laws of Wisconsin to make the contract.

The answer denies that the defendant was so empowered, and avers that it has no information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to whether the plaintiff was so empowered; admits the making of the contract stated in the declaration, and sets forth other provisions of that contract, with which it alleges that the plaintiff had not complied. The plaintiff filed a replication denying the allegations of the answer. Upon a trial in June, 1878, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff for $78,876.13, and judgment rendered thereon, and the defendant sued out this writ of error.

No bill of exceptions having been seasonably tendered, the only question presented by the record is whether, under the general laws of the state of Wisconsin, and the defendant's charter, which by those laws (as existing at the times of the granting of the charter, and of the trial; Rev. St. 1858, c. 5, § 2) was declared to be a public act, the contract sued on, as set forth in the declaration and admitted in the answer, is ultra vires of the defendant corporation.

The general doctrine upon this subject is now well settled. The charter of a corporation, read in connection with the general laws applicable to it, is the measure of its powers, and a contract manifestly beyond those powers will not sustain an action against the corporation. But whatever, under the charter and other general laws, reasonably construed, may fairly be regarded as incidental to to the objects for which the corporation is created, is not to be taken as prohibited. Thomas v. Railroad Co. 101 U. S. 71; Attorney General v. Great Eastern Ry. Co. 5 App. Cas. 473; Davis v. Oid Colony R. Co. 131 Mass. 258.

The railroad of this corporation extends across the state of Wisconsin from its eastern boundary on Lake Michigan to the Mississippi river; and its charter empowers the directors to make such agreements with any person or corporation whatsoever "as the construction of their railroad, or its management, and the convenience and interest of the company, and the conduct of its affairs, may in their judgment require." Priv. Laws, Wis. 1866, c. 540, § 7. It was within the powers of the corporation, as incidental to its own proper business, to agree to transport as a carrier, over connecting railroad and steam-boat lines, passengers and freight intrusted to it for carriage over its own line. Railway Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U. S. 258. The general laws of Wisconsin, in force at the time of the grant of this charter, authorize any railroad company in this state to make such contracts with any railroad company, whose road terminates on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, within the state of Michigan, “aswill enable said companies to run their roads in connection with each other in such manner as they shall deem most beneficial to their interest," and "to build, construct, and run, as a part of their corporate property, such number of steam-boats or vessels as they may deem necessary to facilitate the business operations of such company or companies." Gen. Laws Wis. 1853, c. 76. And, by the general railroad act of 1872, "any railroad company, heretofore or hereafter incorporated by or under the laws of this state, may exercise all its rights, franchises, and privileges in any other state or territory of the United States, under and subject to the laws of the state or territory where it may exercise, or attempt to exercise, the same, and may accept from any other state or territory and use any additional or other powers or privileges applicable to the carrying of persons and property by railway or steam-boat in said state or territory, or otherwise, applicable to the doings of said company in said state or territory." Gen. Laws Wis. 1872, c. 109, § 51.

These statutes show that the legislature of Wisconsin, recognizing the fact that, from the geographical situation of the state, the railroads which traverse it from east to west form part of a line of transportation extending across the continent, intended to confer upon the corporations owning such railroads very large powers of contracting with other corporations owning railroads or steam-boats, whose course includes connecting parts of the same great line of transportation.

To build and run, as part of the defendant's corporate property, such number of steam-boats on Lake Michigan as it might deem necessary to facilitate its business, would be within the power expressly conferred by the statute of 1853; and we are of opinion that, taking into consideration all the statutes above quoted, it was equally within its corporate powers to hire, either by the trip or by the season, steam-boats belonging to others, running from its eastern terminus along the great lakes eastward; or to employ such steamboats to carry passengers and freight, in connection with its own railroad and business, under an agreement by which it guarantied to the proprietors of the boats that their gross earnings for the season should not fall below a certain sum.

*There is, therefore, nothing in the record before us to show that the agreement sued on was beyond the corporate powers of this railroad company. Judgment affirmed.

(107 U. S. 192)

ATLANTIC WORKS v. BRADY.

BRADY V. ATLANTIC WORKS.

(March 5, 1883.)

LETTERS PATENT-IMPROVED DREDGE-BOAT-DESIGN OF PATENT LAW-PRIOR. ITY OF INVENTION-EVIDENCE-PATENT, WHEN VOID.

Letters patent granted to Edwin L. Brady, December 17, 1867, for an improved dredge-boat for excavating rivers, declared to be invalid for want of novelty and invention

The design of the patent laws is to reward those who make some substantial discovery or invention, which adds to our knowledge and makes a step in advance in the useful arts. It was never their object to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures.

Although a patent is not set up by way of defense in an answer, yet if the invention patented thereby is afterwards put into actual use, the date of the patent will be evidence of the date of the invention on a question of priority between different parties.

One person receiving from another a full and accurate description of a useful improvement, cannot appropriate it to himself; and a patent obtained by him therefor will be void.

Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.

Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for Atlantic Works.

Albert A. Abbott, for Brady.

BRADLEY, J. This case arises upon a bill in equity filed by Edwin L. Brady against the Atlantic Works, a corporation of Massachusetts, having workshops and a place of business in Boston, praying for an account of profits for building a dredge-boat in violation of certain letters patent granted to the complainant, bearing date December 17, 1867, and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from making, using, or selling any dredge-boat in violation of said letters patent. The hill was filed on the ninth of April, 1868, and had annexed thereto a copy of the patent alleged to be infringed. The following are the material parts of the specification:

"The excavator consists of a strong boat, propelled by one or two propellers placed in the stern of the boat. I prefer two propellers, as affording greater power and rendering the boat more manageable in steering in crooked channels. This propeller is driven in the ordinary manner by steam-engines of ordinary construction. Near the bow of the boat I place another steam-engine,

194

driving what I call the 'mud-fan,' which projects from and in front of the bow of the boat. This is formed by a set of revolving blades shown at A, turned, like the propellers, by a shaft passing through a stuffing-box, D. The blades are shaped somewhat like those of a propeller, but they are sharper on their fronts and less inclined on their faces. These blades should extend, say, two feet below the bottom of the boat, and their object is by their rapid revolution to displace the sand and mud on the bottom, and, stirring them up, to mix them with the water so that they may be carried off by the current.

"The motion of the 'mud-fan' tends to draw forward the boat, assisting the propellers.

"All the engines may be driven by one set of boilers, F, placed amid-ships. In order that the 'mud-fan' may be brought in contact with the bottom, I construct the boat with a series of water-tight compartments, E, placed in the bow and stern, and on each side of the center, amid-ships, into which the water may be permitted to flow through pipes so as to sink the vessel to the required depth; the compartments being so placed and proportioned that the vessel shall sink with an even keel, by which the effective action of the 'mudfan,' the propellers, and the steering apparatus is preserved, the boat being manageable at any depth. A large pump, B, driven by the engine, is connected by pipes with all the compartments, so that the water may be pumped out when necessary to raise the boat.

"I am aware that boats have been constructed with compartments to be filled with water, to sink the dredging mechanism to the bottom, by loading the end of the boat in which such mechanism is placed; but this construction is subject to the disadvantage of requiring more complicated machinery for dredging, in order that it may be accommodated to the inclination of the boat, and to the further disadvantage that the boats thus inclined are comparatively unmanageable.

"What I claim as my invention, and desire to secure my letters patent, is: (1) A dredging-boat, constructed with a series of water-tight compartments, so proportioned and arranged that, as they are filled with water, the boat shall preserve an even keel, and the dredging mechanism be brought into action without any adjusting devices, substantially as set forth. (2) The combination of the 'mud-fan' attached to a rigid shaft, and a boat containing a series of water-tight compartments, E, so adjusted as to cause the boat to settle on an even keel as the compartments are filled with water, and a pump, B, for exhausting the water from all the compartments, substantially as set forth."

The defendants, in their answer, denied the validity of the patent, and denied infringement of any valid patent of the complainant. They then stated the circumstances under which they came to construct the dredge-boat complained of, namely: That in October, 1867, the government of the United States advertised for proposals for building a dredge-boat for the mouth of the Mississippi river, according to certain plans and specifications; that the defendants, being manufacturers and builders of marine engines and steam-boats, examined the plans and specifications, and made proposals for build