« PreviousContinue »
ARGUED AND DETERMINED
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
OCTOBER TERM, 1894.
(156 U. 8. 47)
WRIGHT v. YUENGLING.
FRINGEMENT-CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM-COMBINATION-PATENTABILITY.
1. The claim in the specification of letters patent No. 114,818, for an improvement in frames for horizontal engines, of a semicircular connecting piece joining the guiding cylinder and the steam cylinder head, is not infringed by an engine in which the guiding cylinder connects directly with the steam cylinder; the purpose of the connecting piece being accomplished, in a measure, by an oral opening near the end of & guiding cylinder, but which does not admit of as ready access to the cylinder head.
2. A patentee having described in his specifications a particular device, and declared it to be an essential feature of his invention, cannot afterwards claim that it is immaterial, or that a machine which dispenses with it is an infringement, though it accomplishes the same purpose in perhaps an equally effective manner.
3. The claims of a patent, the novelty of which is open to doubt, and which is not for a pioneer invention, should be rigidly construed.
4. The combination of a cylindrical guide with a trough for the connecting rod is not patentable, where it appears that the combination is a mere aggregation of their respective functions, which were performed by the cylindrical guide and the trougb in prior patents, though aut in combination with each other.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the Cuitea States for the Southern District of New York.
This was a suit by William Wright against
David G. Yuengling for lufringement of patent. The bill was dismissed by the circuit court. 33 Fed. 655.
This was a bill in equity for an injunction, and the recovery of damages for infringement of letterg patent No. 144,818, issued November 18, 1873, to the plaintiff, Wright, for an improvement in frames for horizontal engines.
In his specification the patentee stated the object of his invention to be the "attainment of both lightness and strength in the construction of frames for horizontal engines, and at the same time to dispense with much of the fitting and other costly work demanded by the ordinary frames of engines of this class."
The following drawing exhibits the mate rial parts of the invention. * The patentee further stated that “the extreme rear end of the frame, and forming part of the same, is the head, a, of the steam cylinder, A, and the portion of the frame which in ordinary engines is devoted to the usual flat sides consists of a hollow cylinder, b, arranged concentrically with the steam cylinder, and serving as a guide for the cross bead, the guiding cylinder being simply bored out to receive a cross head, adapted to it in a manner which need not bere be explained, as it forms no part of my present invention. There are lateral openings, e, e, in this cylindrical guiding portiou of the
frame, in order that access may be had to pleadings and proofs, the bill was dismissed the cross head.
A semicircular upon these grounds, and defendant appealed. connecting piece, d, merges at one end in the guiding cylinder, b, and at the other end
Andrew M. Todd, for appellant. B. F. in the cylinder head, a, thus uniting the two,
Lee, for appellee. the open top of the said connecting piece permitting ready access to be had to the stuff Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts ing box of the cylinder head.
in the foregoing language, delivered the opin"This combination in a horizontal engine ion of the court. frame of the guiding cylinder, b, cylinder The object of the invention in question was head, a, and connection, d, constitutes an to add both lightness and strength to the especial feature of my invention. The cylin construction of frames for horizontal, singleder, b, not only forms the main body of this crank engines. To attain this the patentee, portion of the frame, but serves at the same instead of employing the ordinary flat, paraltiine as a cross-head guide, which can be lel slides for the piston and cross head, makes readily prepared for service by the same bar use of a hollow cylinder, arranged concenwhich is used for boring out the cylinder. trically with the steam cylinder, and serving
"From the front of the guiding cylinder, b, as a guide for the cross head, together with to the point, x, where it meets the base, H, a trough connecting this cylinder with the the frame is made in the form of an inclined base, H, and deep enough to permit the free concavo-convex trough, D, deep enough to movement of the connecting rod. This conpermit the free movement of the connecting struction is further strengthened by a rib rod; and this trough,
on the line, extending along the upper edge of one side, 1, 2, has one side, m, the upper edge of which p, of the trough, D, continued along the upper is continued in a plane coinciding with the edge of the base, H, and also along the upper center of the cylinder, b, from the latter to edge of the other side, m, of the trough, and the enlargement, n, for receiving the bearing terminating at an extension of the cylinder of the crank shaft; the opposite side, p, of head, a; and also, to add vertical strength the trough, er 'ending from the guiding cylin to the frame, a rib or web, t, was extended der, b, with a gradually descending curve to from the base, H, to the cylinder head, a, the base, H, into the upper portion of which merging in a foot, w, which serves as one It merges.
of the supports of the frame. The cylinder “A strengthening rib, q, extends along the head, a, the guiding cylinder, b, with its upper edge of the side, p, of the trough-like connecting piece, the trough, D, the base, H, connection, D, and is continued along the and the web, t, are cast in a single piece, upper edge of the base, H, and also along the and firmly bolted to the head of the steam upper edge of the side, m, of the trough, and cylinder, A. terminates at an extension of the cylinder 1. The first claim is for a combination of head, a; and in order to add vertical strength the cylinder, b, the cylinder head, a, and the to the frame a central web, t, extends from semicircular connecting piece, d, while the the base, H, to the cylinder head, a, this web third claim includes the same elements, and, merging into the foot, w, which serves as in addition thereto the trough, D, the base, one of the supports of the frame.
H, and the web, t. "In horizontal engines there is necessarily In view of the fact, to which we shall herean excessive lateral strain on the frame be- after call attention, that a cylinder had been tween the cross-head guides and the crank used long before for guiding the cross head shaft. This strain is effectually resisted by of a piston, it is at least open to doubt wheththe comparatively light, trough-like portion er there was any novelty in the first claim. of the frame between the crank shaft and Such novelty, if there be any at all, consists guiding cylinder.”
in leaving certain lateral openings, e, e, in His claims were as follows:
the guiding cylinder, and in taking half the “(1) A horizontal steam-engine frame, in top off of such cylinder as it approaches the which a cylinder, b, for guiding the cross steam cylinder, in order to ive convenient head, is combined with the cylinder head, a, access to the cross beau. But, in the view and semicircular connecting piece, d, sub we take of the alleged infringing device, it stantially in the manner described.
is unnecessary to express a decided opinion “(2) The combination, in a horizontal engine upon this point. frame, of the guiding cylinder, b, base, H, The connecting piece, d, which is described and trough-like connection, D.
in the specification as a semicircular connect“(3) A horizontal engine frame, composed ing piece, merging at one end in the guiding of the cylinder head, a, guiding cylinder, b, cylinder, and at the other end in the cylinder connecting piece, d, trough, D, base, H, and head, thus uniting the two, is not only made web, t, all combined substantially in the an element of both these claims, but is said to manner described."
constitute, in connection with the guiding The answer set up the defenses of non cylinder and cylinder head, a special feature Infringement and want of patentable novelty, of the invention. This so-called “connecting by reason of certain prior patents.
piece” is distinguished from the guiding cyl. Upon a hearing in the circuit court upon inder in that it is only semicircular, and thus
admitting of access to the stuffing box with ner. Vance v. Campbell, 1 Black, 427; Meter perfect freedom throughout a complete halt Co. v. Desper, 101 U. S. 332; Gage v. Hercircle. This access is had, not through a mere ring, 107 U. S. 640, 648, 2 Sup. Ct. 819; Gould hole or opening, such as are e, e, but through v. Rees, 15 Wall. 187; Brown v. Davis, 116 such an opening as can be obtained by cut U. S. 237, 249, 6 Sup. Ct. 379. ting away the upper half of the frame at this If the guiding cylinder of this patent had point.
been a pioneer invention, it is possible the The device used by the defendant contains patentee might have been entitled to a con. a similar cylinder for guiding the cross head, struction of this claim broad enough to inand a trough connecting it with the base; clude the defendant's device, notwithstandbut this cylinder, instead of having its entire ing the absence of the semicircular connectinterior surface bored out, so that it may ing piece; but, as we have already said, the guide the cross bead in the same way that the novelty of the invention is at least open to piston is guided in the steam cylinder (as doubt, and we think the patentee should be in the Wright patent) merely contains an up held to a rigid construction of these claims. per and a lower guide, formed of two slides or The opening in the guiding cylinder, which fitting strips, the surfaces of which are bored is supposed to be the equivalent of the conout, but no other portion of the cylinder. We necting piece, d, instead of increasing so as do not regard this, however, as a material to form a semicircular opening, as in the patdeparture from the Wright patent, as it con ent, decreases, so as to prevent, if anything, stitutes a mere difference in detail of con ready access to the stuffing box, and, under struction, not affecting in any way the opera the circumstances, does not constitute a me tion of the cross head of the cylinder, or chanical equivalent for it. Indeed, the guidchanging materially the efficiency of such ing cylinder of the defendant's engine bears cylinder. Nor do we think it material that a stronger resemblance t- t'ose shown in the in defendant's structure there is no cylinder prior patents hereinafter cited than to that head forming part of, cast with, and con of the Wright patent; and hence, if the prior stituting a portion of, the engine frame, since patents anticipate the Wright cylinder, the the frame of the defendant's device termi defendant's does not infringe it. nites in a flange adapted to be bolted to a 2. The second claim of the patent is for cylinder head, and thus, in fact, constituting “the combination, in a horizontal engine a part of it.
frame, of the guiding cylinder, b, base, H, But the absence of the semicircular con and trough-like connection, D.” The guid. necting piece, d, is a circumstance worthy of ing cylinder, which is used in lieu of the ormore serious consideration. In the defend dinary parallel slides, was, however, by no ant's engine there is no such semicircular con means a novelty in the construction of en. necting piece as is described in the Wright gine frames. It is found in different stages patent, but the guiding cylinder extends back of perfection in several prior .patents, viz.:* ward to a connection with the head of the In a patent issued to Samuel Wright, as early steam cylinder, the side of such guiding cyl as 1837, for locomotive engines, and was inder, through which the cross head operates, there used, as the patentee states, “to subcontaining an opening oval in shape and nar serve the twofold purpose of a (steam) purrf rower at each end than in the center. The and guide;" in the patent to Gelston San. equivalent for the connecting piece, if found ford, of February 15, 1859, in which the in. at all, must be in this continuation of the vention related to elongating the cylinder, guiding cylinder backward to the steam cyl- | “by which means it becomes a part of th. inder. But this portion of the cylinder is frame, used for the support of the crank neither scooped out in a semicircular form, shaft, and so constructed that, when bored nor does it admit of ready access to the cross out, it forms a guide and rest for the cross head shown at this point in the wright pat head;" in the patent to William Wright, of ent. Instead of access to the cross head be August 8, 1865, in which the movement of ing easier at this point than any other, it is the piston is transmitted to the main cranb in reality more difficult, as the oval opening by means of a connecting rod, jointed to thn is narrower there than in the center. * Now, cross head, to which the piston is attached while this semicircular connecting piece may and which is guided in ways or guides, fast be an immaterial feature of the Wright in to the frame, and in which a semicircular vention, and the purpose for which it is em connecting piece is also shown; in that to ployed accomplished, though less perfectly, John B. Root, of August 14, 1866, in whicb by the extension of the guiding cylinder in the piston also works in two cylindrical the manner indicated in defendant's device, guides attached to the cylinder heads; ir yet the patentee, baving described it in the that to Maxwell & Cope, of February 13 specification, and declared it to be an essen 1872; in that to Edward H. Cutler, of No tial feature of his invention, and having vember 26, 1872; and in that to George H made it an element of these two claims, is not Babcock, of December 10, 1872. now at liberty to say that it is immaterial, or It is true that none of these patents exbibit that a device which dispenses with it is an distinctly the trough-like connection, D, of infringement, though it accomplish the same the Wright patent, but that also is found in purpose in, perhaps, an equally effective man. the patent to Chilion D, Farrar, of March 19,
1872, in which it is fully sbown in the draw. Mr. Chief Justice FULLER. This was ings, though not described in the specifica. suit brought in the court of claims under an tion, and is used in connection with the ordi. act of congress entitled "An act for the redary filt guides or parallel slides.
lief of William Talbert," approved June 30, Wright's only invention, then, was in the 1886, and reading as follows: “That the combination of the cylindrical guide with the ciaim of William Talbert, of Moutgomery trough shown in the Farrar patent. Did this county, Maryland, for the use by the govern. accon)plish a new and valuable result, it is ment of his patented improvement for maquite possible that a patent therefor might rine railways, be, and the same is hereby, have been sustained; but we do not find this referred to the court of claims, with author. to be the case. The cylindrical guide per ity to take jurisdiction thereof, and to award forms the same functions as in the prior pat judgment thereon, as the merits of the case ents; the trough, in which the connecting rod may demand, according to its value to the works in the Farrar patent, is practically the government during the existence of such patsame as in the Wright patent; and the com. ent." 24 Stat. 822, c. 591. bination is a mere aggregation of their re The court filed findings of fact and a con. spective functions. If the combination of the clusion of law; rendered an opinion, reporttrough and cylindrical guide of the Wrighted in 25 Ct. Cl. 141; and gave judgment in patent gives greater lightness and strength to claimant's favor for $6,564.30, from wbich the frame than the combination of the trough both parties appealed, but argument is waiv. and the flat guides of the Farrar patent, it is ed by the government on its cross appeal. a mere difference in degree; * a carrying for. Among the findings of fact was the follow, ward of an old idea; a result, perhaps, some ing: “(8) The value to the government of what more perfect than had theretofore been plaintiff's patented improvement for marine attained, but not rising to the dignity of in railways during the existence of his patent vention. We have repeatedly held patents of was $6,564.30, being 2 per cent upon the this description to be invalid. Stimpson v. amount earned by the railway cradle as im. Woodman, 10 Wall. 117; Smith v. Nichols, 21 prored during said period.” On this appeal, Wall. 112; Guidet v. Brooklyn, 105 U. S. 530; only questions of law can be reviewed, and Hall v. MacNeale, 107 U. S. 90, 2 Sup. Ct. 73. none such are presented for our considera
The decree of the court below dismissing tion. The contention is that the sum award. the bill is therefore affirmed.
ed was far less than it should have been; but the eighth finding was one of fact, and
there is nothing in the other findings or else (155 U. S. 64)
where in the record which authorizes us to IVRIGIIT v. BEGGS.
go behind that finding and conclude that (October 22, 1891.)
there was error in respect thereof.
Andrew M. Todd, for appellant. B. F. Lee, for appellee.
(155 U. S. 13)
ROBB et al. v. VOS et al. Mr. Justice BROWN delivered the opinion of the court.
(October 15, 1891.) This was a suit against the defendant, Beggs,
No. 38. as maker of the engine used by Yueng!ing, and is disposed of by the opinion in the last case,
ATTORNEY AND Client - UNAUTHORIZED APPEAR. holding the Wright patent to be invalid. 15
ANCE BY ATTOKSEY-RATIFICATION - EQUITY Sup. Ct. 1. The decree of the court below dis
Relief AGAINST VOID JUDICIAL SALE Coxmissing the bill is therefore aflirmed.
1. In proceedings by an administrator of a
deceased attorney to sell land, deceased's former (165 U. S. 45)
partner filed an answer, setting up a niortgage TALBERT v. UNITED STATES.
on the land, giren by deceased to secure money
due, and also to secure him against loss by re:UNITED STATES v. TALBERT.
son of their prior partnership, and alleging th:1t (October 15, 1894.)
certain persons, as trustees, claimed that such
partnership was indebted to them on account Nos. 24 and 25.
of transactions with deceased, that such transReview OP Decision OF COURT OP CLAIMS-Finn actions were concealed from him by deceased, INGS OF FACT.
and that such trustees were pecessary parties. Under Act June 30, 18S6, referring a
The trustees filed an answer and cross petition, claim for the use by the government of a pat
in which they alleged that (ertain land Wils ented improvement to the court of claims, with
conveyed to them as security for a loau of trust authority to a ward judgment according to its
funds; that, in an action against the grantor to value to the gorernment, that court gave judg.
subject his interest to claims of creditors, de ment for the amount of such value as found by
ceased entered an unauthorized and fraudulent it. Held, that the supreme court could not re
appearance as attorney for them, consented to view such finding. 2.7 Ct. Cl. 141, affirmed.
a decree that the land be sold dirested of their
interest, and afterwards converted the proceeds Appeals from Court of Claims.
of the sale; and they asked to be adjudged
creditors of deceased's firin, and that their ciaim S. 8. Henkle, for appellant. Asst. Atty.
be paid out of the proceeds of sale of the land fren Conrad, for the United States.
sought to be sold by the administrator. By
leave of conrt, they afterwards withdrew such answer and cross petition, and demurred on the ground that thes were not necessary parties. The demurres was sustained, and they were dismissed, with their costs. Ilchi, in an action by ench frustees to estilhlish a lien on the land so consered to them und sold under such decree, that their roluntary itppearance in the proceedinus to sell real estate was a ratification of the appearance and acts of deceased in the prior actior..
2. Where an attorney enters an unauthor. ized and fraudulent appearance for trustees in an action against them and their grantor to subject the interest of the grantor to claims of creditors, consents to a decree that the land be sold divested of their interest, and afterwards converts the proceeds of sale, a court of equity is the proper tribunal to afford the trustees effectual relief.
3. Where the action in which the fraudulent appearance and unauthorized decree are enterel is in a state court, the granting of such relief by the circuit court of the United States is not an interference with the jurisdiction of the state court,
4. Where land is conveyed to trustees as security for a loan of trust funds, and they lease it to the grantor, they can consent to a judicial sale of it, dirested of their interest, in proceedings to subject the grantor's interest to claims of creditors.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the Unit. ed States for the Southern District of Ohio. "In the year 1883, James Robb, a resident of Hamilton county, Obio, died, leaving an estate, and James Hampden Robb, May R. Miltenberger, and Charlotte M. Pancoast, as his surviving children. Charles A. Kebler, an attorney at Cincinnati, was appointed ad. ministrator. Mrs. Miltenberger and Ellen W. Robb had claims against the estate. A written agreement was executed by all concerned, in the following terms:
"For an amicable settlement of all claims and controversy as to the estate of James Robb, deceased, late of Hamilton county, Ohio, it is mutually agreed by the undersigned as follows:
"(1) That Mrs. Miltenberger's claim for an annuity of one thousand dollars, in accordance with her agreement with her father for her son's education from the time he became ten years of age until he became twenty-one years of age, which is now in suit (No. 37,317) in the superior court of Cincinnati, and James Hampden Robb's claim in suit No. 37,820 in the same court, and Mrs. Ellen W. Robb's claim in suit No. 67,460 in the court of common pleas of the said county of Hamllton, are all hereby allowed by Charles A. Kebler, administrator, by and with the consent of the undersigned and at their request, as valid claims against said James Robb's estate, and shall be satisfied and discharged in the manner hereinafter provided and agreed to as to each of them, respectively; the claim of Mary Robb in suit No. 67,459, common pleas, to be also provided for and discharged As hereinafter agreed.
"(2) The deed which is alleged to have been made by the said James Robbon or about November 14, 1879, to his daughter Mrs. Isabella San Raman, conveying to her the tract of land near Cheviot, then owned and occu
pied by him, being without consideration, and, in consequence of his insolvency at that time, wholly void as to his creditors, it is agreed by Charles A. Kebler, as administrator of said estate, that in pursuance of the statute in such case provided, and by request of the other subscribers hereto, he shall and will immediately bring an action for the re covery of the said land, or for the sale of said land and avoidance of the said pretend. ed conveyance, for the benefit of said estate and its creditors.
“(3) Besides the outstanding debts for personal and household expenses of James Robb, the cost of the monument heretofore agreed by the undersigned to be erected at Spring Grove cemetery in memory of the said James Robb, and all the proper costs and expenses of the administration of his estate and of the suit for the recovery of the land above mentioned, including the administrator's counsel's fees, shall first be paid out of the moneys now in his hands.
"(4) After paying the same, the remaining moneys in his hands and the proceeds of the sale of the land aforesaid, or so much as nec. essary, shall be set apart and invested for two trust funds, as follows: One of the said funds shall be made sufficlent to pay Mrs. Miltenberger the amount already due of said annuity, in compliance with the agreement made with her father for account of her son's education, and also to yield and pay the said annuity year by year until her son becomes twenty-one years of age, if he lives; and the surplus of said fund, if any remaining after he becomes of age, or in case he dies before becoming of age, shall fall into the residuary estate, to be divided as hereinafter agreed; the other of the said trust funds to be suffi. cient to secure and pay to Mrs. Ellen N. Robb an annuity of six hundred dollars ($600) for and during the term of her life, payable semiannually, and to commence from the
day of A. D. —, and from and after her decease to pay the said Mary Robb, her daughter, if she survives her mother, an annuity of three hundred dollars ($300), payable semiannually, for and during * the term of the life of said Mary, and that the annuities so to be paid to the said Mary R. Miltenberger, Ellen W. Robb, and Mary Robb, respectively, shall be in full satisfaction and discharge of all their claims afore said as creditors of the said estate.
"The appointment of trustees and appropri. ation of funds necessary and sufficient for the two trusts aforesaid shall be effected as soon as practicable by the said Charles A. Kebler, the administrator, and the parties concerned.
"(5) All the pictures, library, letters and papers, plate, and other chattels, useful or or. namental, belonging to the said estate, shall be turned over to James Hampden Robb, reserving for Mrs. Charlotte M. Pancoast somo one article to be agreed upon by them, which portions of the estate shall be received and