The Mayor, &c. of New York v. The New England Transfer Co. rate and exclusive right in the corporation to establish all needful ferries, and that the powers which the mayor and common. council rightfully exercised over the old territory, were, by the act of annexation, to be exercised over the new territory, to the same extent as if such territory had always been a part of the city, and that thus the ferry franchises were extended to and impressed upon such new territory. On the other hand, it may be urged, that the charter was of a municipal corporation, which was established upon an island; that the prosperity, and the very existence of the city depended upon its abundant, permanent and regular means of intercourse with the main land; that there was a necessity that the city should be furnished with the exclusive power to authorize the permanent establishment of regular and frequent means of communication with the opposite shores and with Long Island; that, therefore, the power was given to the corporation to connect the island by ferries with other places, as a power indispensable to the welfare of the city; that this power, being in terms for the establishment of ferries around the island, was not, by the act of annexation, extended to a power to establish ferries from the newly acquired territory beyond the island, but the construction of the grant should be governed and controlled by the circumstances which existed when the charter was given, and which made such a grant necessary; and that, therefore, the city of New York, as enlarged by the annexation, possesses only the same franchise which it previously had that of establishing ferries from the island, and not necessarily from the territory of the city, and that this construction limits the grant to the natural meaning of the words employed. The view which I take of the third question, renders it unnecessary to express an opinion upon this point. 3. Is the liberty or privilege, which the defendants now use, of running the steamer Maryland, in the manner and for the uses described in the statement of facts, a ferry, within the meaning of the grant in the Montgomerie charter? In Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Company, (1 Wall., 116,) the Supreme Court held, that a railroad bridge, which was an The Mayor, &c. of New York v. The New England Transfer Co. extension of the iron rails which composed the material part of a railroad over the Hackensack river, together with such substructure as is necessary to keep the rails in place and enable them to support the cars, was not a bridge, within the meaning of an Act of the Legislature of New Jersey, passed in 1790, by which that State empowered certain commissioners to contract for the building of a bridge over the Hackensack, and provided that it should not be lawful for any person to erect any other bridge across the said river for ninety-nine years. The decision was upon the ground, that a railroad bridge, on which there was "no planked bottom, no roadway or path, nothing on which man or beast or vehicle could pass, save as it is carried over in the cars," was not a bridge, within the minds of the framers of the Act of 1790, or within the true intent and meaning of the exclusive grant contained in that Act. To the same effect are Mohawk Bridge Co. v. Utica R. R. Co., (6 Paige, 554;) McRee v. Railroad Co., (2 Jones, Law, 186;) Thompson v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., (3 Sand. Ch. R., 625.) The decision in Enfield Bridge Co. v. Hartford & N. II. R. R. Co., (17 Conn., 40.) where the contrary doctrine was ably maintained, is not in accordance with the prevailing opinion which is now entertained by the Courts of this country. The reasoning which denies that a railroad bridge is an interference with an exclusive right theretofore granted to build an ordinary bridge, applies with almost equal force to the question, whether a ferry franchise is interfered with by a ferry which is designed for the transportation of railroad cars only. The boat of the defendants is provided with two railroad tracks, which prevent the entrance or egress of ordinary vehicles, and also of foot passengers, except as they are transported in cars which run upon the railroad tracks. The boat is exclusively used for the transportation of railroad cars, in connection only with the arrival of trains. It is impossible to transport ordinary vehicles upon the boat, it is impracticable to transport foot passengers, except as they are conveyed to the boat in cars. The whole arrangement of boat and docks. The Mayor, &c. of New York v. The New England Transfer Co. is for the ingress and egress of railroad cars, and not for the accommodation of anything else. The ferry is a part of a continuous through railroad line from places north and east of the city of New York, to places south and southwest of that city, and the trips of the boat are dependent upon the arrival of through railroad trains. Such a ferry is unlike an ordinary ferry for the transportation across a river of persons, animals and freight, at intervals more or less regular, for fare or toll. The ordinary ferry is a substitute for the ordinary bridge, and is a means of transportation of all persons and ordinary vehicles, and is for the ac commodation of the public generally, and should, therefore, be accessible to the public. The railroad ferry is a substitute for a railroad bridge, and is a part of a railroad route for the transportation of the cars which are used upon a railroad track, and the burden which they bear, and is not for the accommodation of any persons except those who happen to be, for the time being, railroad passengers. A railroad ferry is a means of connecting railroad tracks, or two railroads, as a railroad bridge is the continuation of railroad tracks across a stream of water. It differs widely, except in name, from a general or unlimited ferry, (Fitch v. R. R. Co., 30 Conn., 38,) and is not within the spirit of the grant which was made to the city of New York in the year 1730; and the adoption of the word ferry, "to express the modern invention, does not bring it within the terms of the" charter, "if it is not within the intent of it." (Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Co., 1 Wall., 116.) But, it is urged, that, in Aiken v. Western R. R. Co., (20 N. Y., 370,) a ferry which was used by a railroad for the transportation of its passengers and freight, has been held to interfere with a ferry franchise theretofore granted. The ferry which the Western Railroad Company used at Albany was not the ferry which is described in the agreed statement of facts, and which is now known as a railroad ferry, and designed for the transportation of cars, although it was used by a railroad corporation, but was an ordinary steamboat and transported other persons, teams and carriages than such as The Miller's Falls Company v. Ives. were borne upon the railroad. It was justly held, that the maintaining by a railroad company of a ferry, upon which it regularly and constantly transported gratuitously persons not passengers nor in its service, was an invasion of the right of a proprietor of a ferry franchise. The decision in this case does not conflict with the doctrine which is recognized in Fitch v. Rail Road Co., (30 Conn., 38.) It results, that the establishment of the railroad ferry of the defendants is not an invasion of the exclusive franchise of the plaintiffs, assuming that their franchise was extended to the territory which was annexed in 1874. Let there be a decree dismissing the bill. George Ticknor Curtis, for the plaintiffs. Simeon E. Baldwin and George H. Forster, for the defendants. THE MILLER'S FALLS COMPANY V8. W. A. IVES & Co. IN EQUITY. Two suits. The invention set forth in reissued letters patent granted to the Miller's Falls Manufacturing Company, November 29th, 1870, for an improvement in instruments for operating tools, such as augers, bits, &c., the shanks of which are of variable sizes (the original patent having been granted to James M. Horton, July 8th, 1862,) defined. The invention set forth in letters-patent granted to Charles H. Amidon, January 14th, 1868, for an improvement in bit-stocks, defined. The claims of the patents construed, and the patents held to be valid. The construction of devices which infringe the patents, set forth. (Before SHIPMAN, J., Connecticut, March 23d, 1877.) SHIPMAN, J. These are two bills in equity, each of which is brought to restrain the defendant corporation from an al The Miller's Falls Company v. Ives. leged infringement of letters patent granted to James M. Horton, on July 8th, 1862, and reissued for the second time to the Miller's Falls Manufacturing Company, on November 29th, 1870, and also from an infringement of letters patent granted to Charles H. Amidon, on the 14th of January, 1868. Each patent is now owned by the plaintiffs. The Horton patent was for an improvement in instruments for operating tools, such as augers, bits, &c., the shanks of which are of variable sizes. The Amidon patent was for an improvement in bit-stocks. The infringement complained of in the first suit was the making and selling by the defendants of bit-braces, known in the market as the "Ives Brace" and the "Ives Novelty." The second suit was brought to restrain the defendants from making the "Centennial" and the "Centennial Novelty" braces, the manufacture of which last named tools was commenced after the first suit had been brought. The two bills of complaint may be treated as substantially one action. The principal defence as against the Horton patent is non-infringement, and as against the Amidon patent is want of novelty. The Horton device was an auger handle, provided with a metal band, called in the patent a barrel, around its centre, the lower portion of which barrel is formed into a projecting cylinder or socket, recessed or slotted upon its opposite sides. The recesses receive two jaws, the ends of which are curved so as to lie loosely in the recesses, and act as hinges upon which the jaws swing. Along the centre axis of the cylinder there is a rectangular tapering bore, large enough to receive the shank of the boring tool. A revolving nut, which forces the jaws together, is fitted upon the screw threads which are cut upon the periphery of the cylindrical portion of the cylinWhen the nut is near the handle, the lower part of the jaws swing upon their hinged parts, so as to receive the shank of the tool to be used. When the nut is screwed curved ends of the jaws enclose the shoulder of the auger shank. The claims are, "1. The combination of the barrel A, provided with a socket C, jaws B and D and nut N, working der. up, the |