« AnteriorContinuar »
If it be assumed that an applicant, by reason adopted, and that the patent had long been ac-
That three skillful mechanics, acting inde-
mechanical skill.-Haslem v. Pittsburg Plate-
Glass Co. (C. C.) 479; Same v. Standard Plate
Glass Co., Id.
such drawings and specifications made it plain,
held, in the absence of contrary evidence, that
A method for overcoming disadvantages in
the use of celluloid for book covers held to show
duced artistic and commercially successful re-
Transferring the hinging and journaling
Wagner (C. C. A.) 494.
After the granting of several patents to the
-Reynolds v. Standard Paint Co. (C. C. A.)
Where the terms used in the specification and
claims indicate so clearly a particular meaning
that no other can reasonably be attached to
Where the specifications of a patent for treat- In an action at law for infringement, where
similar case, and defendants are but small man-
A bill for infringement of five patents, which
-Chemical Rub- them are used by defendants conjointly, or up
on the same machine or apparatus, or are capa-
ble of such use, is bad for multifariousness.
Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Philadelphia &
A bill for infringement of five separate pat-
of each of the patents in one and the same ap-
paratus should be allowed.-Union Switch &
-With- quired by Rev. St. 4900. - National Co. v.
A contract by which the parties convey a DECISIONS ON THE VALIDITY, CON-
OF PARTICULAR PATENTS.
The Hinkle patent, No. 183,055, for an im-
provement in air chambers for forcing water
for operating elevators, construed, and held void
by reason of anticipation. - National Co. v.
Belcher (C. C.) 665; Same v. Morse, Id.
meritorious and useful invention, and held in-
The Rothschild patent, No. 22,222, for a de-
.. pated, and held valid and infringed.-R. Roths-
child's Sons' Co. v. Mentel (C. C.) 716.
Celluloid bindings and veneering. in pumps, held valid and infringed, the first as
1.-Mast, Foos & Co. v. Iowa Windmill &
Rocking chairs—Spring attachments.
Patent No. 354,043, December 7, 1886, for
Patent No. 354,043, December 7, 1886, for
Rocker Spring Co. v. Thomas (C. C.) 196.
The Mitchell patents, Nos. 300,720 and 249,-
not infringed.-Chemical Rubber Co. v. Ray-
mond Rubber Co. (C. C.) 570.
The Miller and Diehl patent, No. 224,710, for
of prior use, and held infringed.-Singer Manuf"g
Co. v. Schenck (C. C.) 191.
The first claim of the Cramer patent for the
(C. C.) 201.
The Grout patent, No. 261,446, for an im-
provement in sewing machines treadles, con-
The Klein and Woodard patent, No. 249,842,
for a vapor-burning stove attachment, held valid
Telegraph and telephone.
The Berliner patent, No. 463,569, for a com-
American Bell Tel. Co. v. United States (C. C.
The Griswold patent, No. 229,280, for im-
provements in waffle irons, held void as to
claims 1 and 2 because of anticipation, and as
324,658. Electric smelting processes, 300
324,659. Process of obtaining aluminium, 362
228 338,868. Paper coated with maltha, 484
348,993. Paper coated with maltha, 484, 487
484, 485, 487
348,995. Paper coated with maltha,
487, 485, 487
496 378,520. Paper coated with maltha, 483, 484
426,633. Waterproofing compositions for
665, 668, 669
496 463,569. Telephones,
461,933. Electric smelting processes,
363, 364, 378
468,148. Process of obtaining aluminium,
355, 362, 378
488,630. Book covers,
10,359. Improvement in salesmen's check
Where a party, at the time of making a con-
214 tract for the use of a patented machine, tells
the lessor that he understands better terms as
to royalty are given to others, but accepts the
machine on the terms offered him, and uses it,
without making inquiry as to terms given oth-
ers, or objecting on that ground, and afterwards
in his own favor, he cannot afterwards recover
back part of the royalties paid, on the ground
that he relied on false representations that the
terms were uniform to all.-Bonsack Mach. Co.
V. S. F. Hess & Co. (C. C. A.) 119.
486 Rule against, see "Charities."
See “Master and Servant”; “Negligence";
The keel of a vessel towed through the middle
of a channel in Hell Gate struck some unknown
object; but subsequent examination showed no
obstruction where libelant's evidence placed the
vessel's course. Held, that no negligence or
lack of nautical skill in the pilot was shown.-
665. 662-669 Gypsum Packet Co. v. Horton (D. C.) 931.
362 A display of the customary pilot signal on the
360, 362, 316 visible approach of the boat towards an incom-
ing vessel, are a sufficient tender of pilotage, ren- l be false.—Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co.
The executors of one D. filed a bill for an ac-
counting against C., alleging that he had obtain-
that while she had had full opportunity for 10
years, while free from C.'s influence, to object
to his management, she had never done so, and
that c. held vouchers for his most important
missed.-Halsey v. Cheney (C. C. A.) 763.
The rule that, on demurrer, facts well pleaded PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.
chanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Guaran-
A printed condition in a bank teller's bond is-
sued by a fidelity insurance company requiring
is satisfied by a quarterly examination required
by the contract executed at the time.-Mechan-
ics' Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Guarantee
Co. of North America (C. C.) 459.
One who stands in the position of surety to
pieces of property are primarily liable has a
right to object to the release of any part of such
property from any of such debts, and so to the
Against classification, see "Customs Duties."
Practice in Civil Cases.
When a designation of lands granted by con-
gress has been made, under a mistake of fact
induced by a false survey, the secretary of the
interior has power, before the issue of a patent,
gan Land & Lumber Co. v. Rust (C. C. A.) 155.
Until the determination by the government as