ground that the cylinders they produce, though merchantable and sound, practically speaking, are not absolutely free from blow-holes.

The defendants deny the use in the casting of copper cylinders of the process shown in the Adams patent. In the Adams device the mould rotates, while the defendants rotate a basin on top of the mould. But the rotation of the basin on the top of the mould distributes the metal in the mould in the same manner, substantially, as is done by rotating the mould. What Adams accomplishes by the rotation of the mould the defendants accomplish by the rotation of the basin on top of the mould. We are aware that the defendants deny this. Their position is that the rotating basin causes a different distribution from the method of Adams; that so far from distribution being caused by the rotation of the basin, there is less distribution when the basin rotates than when it is stationary. They further contend that the purpose for which a rotating basin is used, is to prevent the iron of the basin from melting off and injuring the casting as the molten copper is being poured. In spite of this contention on the part of the defendants we think the complainants have shown, by careful experiments, that by rotating the basin the metal is distributed in substantially the same way as by rotating the mould in the manner described by Adams, and that, therefore, the defendants use the Adams process. Again, the argument is pressed by the defendants that the good results they experience in casting copper tubes are due to the use of flux in the molten metal, which they say acts chemically; to better sand for cores; or to whitening for covering the cores. We may admit all these things to be improvements, and yet there is infringement, if they use, in connection with these things, the method of distribution first pointed out by Adams. We know that the defendants undertake to prove that the results are equally good whether the basin rotates or is stationary; and that if they use a stationary plumbago basin, which will not melt like iron, they produce a casting as free from blow-holes as when the basin is rotated. We cannot but doubt this, because the complainants prove that by the Adams method of distributing the metal caused by rotation a very large percentage of sound copper tubes were produced, when previously, by the great weight of testimony, the percentage was small; and because it is further shown that by rotating the basin the defendants do substantially the same thing.

In our opinion, the complainants have made out a case of infringement, and a decree should be entered in their favor in the bill, covering the extended term of the Adams patent. The bill brought upon the original term of the patent must, for the reasons before given, be dismissed.

No. 1,430, bill dismissed; No. 1,428, decree for complainants.

HOYT and others v. SLOCUM and others.1

(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. February 2, 1886.)

1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-BOTTLE-WASHING MACHINE-NOVELTY.

Patent No. 213,583, of March 25, 1879, to Miles and Lovett, is the first patent to show the whole group of instrumentalities which go to make a practical and complete bottle-washing machine.

2. SAME-ANTICIPATION-ABANDONED EXPERIMENT.

To anticipate a patent issued in 1879 the defendants introduced evidence of two machines constructed prior to 1873. One of these machines was used for a limited period by the inventor, mostly in experimenting, when it was thrown aside, and the other was sold to a person who used it at times during several months, when it was also abandoned. Held, that these machines were abandoned experiments.

3. SAME-EQUIVALENTS-INFRINGEMENT.

The fourth claim of the patent sued on specified as one element of a combination of parts in a bottle-washing machine "a fixed or stationary water supply pipe," the object of which was to deliver water to the brush used in washing the bottle. Defendants used a revolving water supply pipe, but it was joined to a stationary pipe, a stationary pipe being essential in such machines. Held, that these devices were fairly equivalents, and that defendants infringed.

4. SAME.

This claim also specified a funnel-mouthed sleeve, adapted to be revolved. In defendants' machine the mouth-piece and the sleeve were in two pieces, the mouth-piece being stationary and the sleeve adapted to be revolved. The functions of the two devices were the same. Held, that the differences were not substantial, and that the defendants infringed.

COLT, J. This suit is brought for infringement of letters patent No. 213,583, granted to Miles and Lovett, March 25, 1879, for a machine. for washing bottles. The complainants derive title to the patent by assignment.

While we find other machines for washing bottles previous to the invention of Miles and Lovett, all of them were more or less imperfect or incomplete. In the patented machine we see organized for the first time the whole group of instrumentalities which go to make a practical and complete bottle-washing machine. This group consists of a water supply pipe; a brush or scraper, which is rotated at the end of a shaft, and which has the capacity of compression and expansion; a funnel-shaped mouth-piece against which the neck of the bottle is to be placed; and a sleeve into which the brush is withdrawn, and which will rotate with the brush when it is not in use, and thus save it from wear. In the prior patents referred to there are some of these devices, but in none of them do we find the sleeve within which the brush is withdrawn, and which rotates with the brush so as to protect it from wear. This is an important feature in the machine, and a great improvement over any prior machine.

Reported by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.

The defendants have introduced what is called the Harvey machine as an anticipation of the patented device. The Harvey machine, however, contains no provision for supplying water to the bottle. But it is claimed that it had a sleeve for holding the brush and protecting it from wear. From the fact that the Harvey machine was only used for a limited period by the person who invented it, and whose business made it necessary for him to wash bottles, and was then abandoned, the inference is a fair one that it was found not to be worth using. Harvey himself testifies that it was used mostly in experimenting. Another Harvey machine was sold to James S. Hazard, of Newport, Rhode Island. He testifies to the use of the machine at times during several months, and to its abandonment principally because it ran so hard. All this happened previous to 1873. Both these Harvey machines were thrown aside after a short time, and they may fairly be considered as abandoned experiments; at least the priority of the Harvey machine has not been proved with that clearness and certainty which are necessary.

We now come to the question of infringement. The fourth claim of the patent is as follows:

"(4) The combination, in a bottle-washer, of a fixed or stationary water supply pipe; a sleeve-shaft mounted upon and adapted to be revolved about said stationary pipe; a brush or scraper attached to the end of said sleeveshaft, and adapted to be revolved therewith about the end of said pipe, and to be compressed to enter the neck of the bottle, and to expand to the largest interior diameter of the bottle; and a funnel-mouthed sleeve, mounted upon and surrounding said sleeve operating shaft, and inclosing the brush, and adapted to be moved end wise on said driving-shaft to uncover the brush, and to be revolved with said shaft by frictional contact therewith, or be prevented from revolving by frictional contact with the neck of the bottle, substantially as and for the purposes described."

Instead of the fixed or stationary water supply pipe, and a sleeveshaft mounted upon and adapted to be revolved about the stationary pipe, the defendants have substituted a revolving water supply pipe, covering the brush at its forward end and joined at its rear to the stationary supply pipe. These devices are fairly equivalents. The object is to deliver the water to the brush, and a stationary supply pipe is essential to any machine into which water is to be delivered. The stationary pipe may either extend to the point where the brush is at work, as in the patent, or there may be joined to the stationary pipe a revolving pipe through which the water is carried to the point of delivery. The substitution of one means for the other does not constitute a material difference.

The main difference between the two machines relates to the encircling sleeve into which the brush is withdrawn. In complainants' machine the sleeve revolves by frictional contact with the revolving brush. The funnel-shaped mouth-piece is attached to the sleeve, and therefore revolves with it until, by the pressure of the bottle against the mouth-piece, the friction which moves it is overcome. When the

bottle is pressed against the sleeve, or its funnel-shaped mouth, or the brush leaves the sleeve, in the process of washing, it ceases to rotate. In defendants' machine the flaring mouth and sleeve are cut into two parts. The mouth-piece is stationary, and the sleeve is revolved positively by the pully which revolves the brush. In the two machines, however, the functions of the mouth-piece and the sleeve are the same. Both machines have a funnel-shaped mouth at the end of a shaft to receive the neck of the bottle. In both the sleeve rotates when the brush is withdrawn from the bottle, thus preventing the wear of the brush. Under these circumstances, whether the mouth rotates or not with the sleeve, it seems to us, is immaterial. The other differences between the two machines can hardly be considered important. We do not think this patent, bearing in mind the advance in the art therein shown, should receive the narrow construction sought to be put upon it by the defendants. We are of opinion that the defendants infringe the fourth claim of the patent by the use of substantially the same means or the equivalents to accomplish the same result. The fact that the machines made and sold by the complainants show some changes as compared with the patent is immaterial. Decree for complainants.

SHAW RELIEF-VALVE Co. v. CITY OF New Bedford.'

(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. February 2, 1886 )

1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-AUTOMATIC RELIEF VALVES.

Patent No. 101,814, of April 12, 1870, to Arthur M. Black, and patent No. 120,958, of November 14, 1871, to James Garland, construed, and held that, in view of what prior inventors had accomplished, said patents must be limited to the specific mechanisms described, or their equivalents.

2. SAME-INFRINGEMENT.

Valves made in accordance with the description in patents No. 134,435, of December 31, 1872, and No. 143,920, of October 21, 1873, to Alvarado Mayer, do not infringe either the Black or the Garland patents.

In Equity.

Chas. H. Drew, for complainant.

Sprague & Hunt and L. Le B. Holmes, for defendant.

COLT, J. This suit is brought for infringement of two patents for improvements in automatic relief-valves: one granted to Arthur M. Black, April 12, 1870, and the other granted to James Garland, November 14, 1871.

Many prior patents for valves are introduced by the defendant. Their examination shows that, in view of what prior inventors had accomplished, the Black and Garland patents must be limited to the

Reported by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.

specific mechanism, or its equivalent, described in the patents. It is apparent, on inspection, that the defendant's valve, made under the Mayer patents, dated December 31, 1872, and October 21, 1873, is widely different in construction from the valve of Black. In both devices we find what is common to most safety or relief valves, namely, a pressure chamber, safety-valve, spring at the valve-seat, and means for adjusting the spring; but in defendant's valve we find no clamp for retaining the relief-valve in position until the safetyvalve causes the clamp to open, nor is the relief-valve provided with any spring, or its equivalent. Aside from certain elements common. to most safety-valves, the specific mechanism of the defendant's device is substantially different from that described in the Black patent. The broad claim of the Black patent must be limited to the particular mechanism described and shown in the specification and drawings.

Nor does the defendant's valve infringe the Garland patent. It is organized in a substantially different way from the Garland valve. It has two pistons instead of one, each working in its own cylinder over the relief-valve and above the water-way; and there are other material differences in construction, which we do not deem it necessary to detail. Whether the same "equilibrium of pressure" is accomplished by both devices is doubtful; but, however, this may be, the means employed are substantially unlike.

A decree must be entered dismissing the bill.

ROEMER V. NEUMANN and others.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. January 14, 1886.)

1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INTERLOCUTORY DECREE.

An interlocutory decree, entered pro confesso, finding the patent valid, awarding an injunction, and referring the case to a master to take an account of profits and damages, is not definitive. No appeal lies from it, and it is still in the control of the court.

2. SAME-RELEASE OF PROFITS AND DAMAGES.

A release of profits, damages, and costs having been signed at the time of the entry of the interlocutory decree, complainant was in a position to have such decree made final.

3. SAME-DISTINCTION BETWEEN FINAL DECREE AND STIPULATION.

The distinction between a final decree and a stipulation upon which such a decree may be entered, is obvious. The sanction of the court to the agreement of the parties is necessary to give such agreement the effect of a final de

cree.

4 SAME-INTERLOCUTORY DECREE AS AN ESTOPPEL.

In a prior suit between the same parties, an interlocutory decree, pro confesso, awarding an injunction and a reference to a master, had been entered and a release of profits and damages signed. In a subsequent suit between the

1 Reported by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.