So upon the question of the validity of the patent, and also to the question of infringement, the jury will find a verdict for the plaintiffs.

The more important question is the question of damages. it has been stated by the counsel that this is one of a number of cases, and that it is to be treated as a test case for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination by a jury of a fair measure of damages for the infringement of the patents in order that the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court in this case may be used in obtaining settlements with other infringers, and for ending other legal proceedings. There fore it is necessary for the jury to consider very carefully what the damages are in this case, remembering that the public generally have some interest in the decision of the jury.

The jury will notice that the only evidence in the case upon the subject of damages is proof of what saving results in that part of the process of manufacturing canned goods which consists in fastening the cover by solder from the use of these ingenious inventions over the old process of using a soldering-iron. The plaintiffs have produced evidence from persons familiar with the business and skilled in this manufacture, from which it appears that by the new process there is a sav. ing of labor; that where by the old process a skilled workman could solder only 1,500 cans a day, under the new process a laborer less skilled can solder 4,000 cans a day, so that the actual saving resulting from diminished labor by the use of the new process over the old amounts, according to the plaintiffs' computation, to $1.20 per 1,000 cans. There is also evidence that by the patented operation there is a saving of solder and less waste, and that where under the old process a pound of solder would be sufficient to seal or fasten only 80 cans, by the new process the same amount of solder will seal or fasten 150 or 160 cans. The plaintiffs figure out, on this evidence, a saving of 75 cents per 1,000 cans in the quantity of solder used. Both together amount to $1.95 per 1,000 cans. The only evidence in the case is that which I have called your attention to, and that is all the evidence before you from which you can compute the damages to which the plaintiffs are entitled for the infringement. It is frequently the case that a license-fee is established by the owner of a patent for the use of his invention, and that is ordinarily the basis upon which a jury estimates its verdict; but there is no evidence in this case of a license fee ever having been established by the plaintiffs for these patents or fixed by a court, and therefore the jury have no such evidence of that character to guide them. The jury have simply the saving which results from the use of the patented devices over the old process. Upon this evidence the jury are justified, if they see fit, in finding a verdict of $1.95 per 1,000 or $1.75 per 1,000, which was the amount suggested by the counsel for the plaintiff. There is no claim here that this amount, should exceed $1.95 per 1,000 cans, and the jury therefore will be justified in finding that sum or any other less sum which they think would be a fair compensation to the plaintiffs for the infringement of their rights as the owners of the pat

ents. I will read to you the prayer which the plaintiffs have asked the court to give. I am requested to instruct you that the jury are to award the plaintiffs a sum equal to the actual damage caused by the infringement, and in forming their estimate of damages they are to consider as evidence of such damages the amount of profits or savings made by the defendant by the use of the infringing device over what the defendant could have made by the use of tools free and open to the public use; and I instruct you that in accordance with that prayer you are to award the plaintiffs an amount equal to his damage, and you are to consider as evidence the gains or savings made by the defendant by the use of the patented device.

You are also to find the amount of the plaintiffs' damages per 1,000 cans. The verdict which the clerk will hand to you will contain a memorandum of the number of cans on which the device has been used by the defendant-50,000-and you are to fill the blank with the amount which you find the damage to be per 1,000 cans.

[Supreme Court of the United States.]

PETERS v. HANSON et al.

1. PETERS-VEHICLE-DASHES.

Decided March 5, 1889.

47 O. G., 945.

Claims 1, 2, and 3 of Letters Patent No. 213,529, granted March 25, 1879, to George M. Peters, for an improvement in vehicle-dashes, cover merely applications of old devices to new uses, not involving invention.

2. SAME-SAME.

There was no invention in providing a bearing-surface (covered by claim 4) upon the frame of the dash, to which the foot of the brace was to be attached to support the brace and dash, either by an increase in the quantity of metal or otherwise, so to strengthen the proper part, in a proper way, for its proper duty. 3. PETERS-VEHICLE-DASH FRAMES.

Reissue Letters Patent No. 9,891, granted October 11, 1881, to George M. Peters, for an improvement in vehicle-dash frames, does not involve invention. The process was old in the state of the art of working metals.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana.

Mr. William Hubbell Fisher and Mr. Benjamin Butterworth for the appellant.

Mr. Arthur Stem for the appellees.

Mr. Justice BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit in equity, brought by George M. Peters, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana, against Julius A. Hanson and Cortland C. Van Camp, for the alleged infringement of two Letters Patent granted to George M. Peters, the plaintiff, namely, Letters Patent No. 213,529, granted March 25, 1879, for an improvement in vehicle dashes, on an application filed June 19, 1875, and

Reissued Letters Patent No. 9,891, for improvements in vehicle-dash frames, granted October 11, 1881, on the surrender of original Letters Patent No. 224,792, granted February 24, 1880, on an application filed May 5, 1879, the reissue having been applied for June 15, 1881.

The answer sets up as to both patents want of novelty and patentability, non-infringement, and the invalidity of the reissue, because it has been expanded beyond the invention disclosed in the original patent, and contains new matter not found in that patent, and is for a different invention.

There was a replication to the auswer, proofs were taken, and the circuit court dismissed the bill. The plaintiff has appealed from the decree. We are not furnished with any opinion given by the circuit court stating the ground for its action, but it said, in the brief for the appellant, that the ground was that the inventions were not patentable So much of the specification of No. 213,529 as is material, and the drawings referred to in it, are as follows:

My invention relates,

secondly, to the attachment of the dash to the vehicle; and this part of my invention renders the dash capable of attachment to vehicles of different widths, so that it can be sold as an article of manufacture, for application to the vehicle by the purchaser. These features of my invention render the construction easy, expeditious, and economical.

Another feature of my invention consists in such a novel construction of the dash as that there shall be at the part of the frame thereof to which the laterally adjustable foot is to be attached a proper bearing-surface for the support and bracing of the dash.

In the accompanying drawings, which form a part of this specification, Figure 1 is

a perspective view of sufficient of a vehicle to illustrate my invention; Fig. 2, a sectional detached view; Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, detached views, illustrating modifications; and Fig. 7, a detached perspective view.

One mode of making the dash-frame is shown in the drawings, in which G F are parallel uprights at each end, C D E parallel cross-rods, and M L short continuations of the rods G F.

In order to connect the frame to the vehicle, and further to permit a frame to be applied to vehicles of different sizes, I construct the frame and the foot H so that, by a lateral adjustment in relation to each other, the desired connection to bodies of different widths may be effected. The frames may be varied in construction to effect this result. Thus in Figs. 1 and 2 the frame has a wide bearing-piece, N, of any desired length, with a slot to receive the fastenings of the foot or attachment H, by which the dash and the body of the vehicle are connected adjustably, so that within the limits of the adjustment the foot secured to the dash may find its bearings on bodies of various widths.

The foot may be of any desired shape, being shown with two branches, b d, one bolted or otherwise secured to the dash and the other to the body I of the vehicle. By the above described means the dashes may be furnished to the trade as independent articles of manufacture, as the foot may be fitted to vehicles in the process of construction or afterward, and the dash secured without altering or moving it. For the like reason, the feet adapted to the vehicles and dashes may be sold separately.

The bearing N for the attachment or foot may be within the frame, as shown in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8, or it may be in an extension outside of the frame, the result being the same-i. e., the frame being adapted to be secured without change to bodies of different widths. This bearing portion N may be secured permanently or detachably to the frame-bars. Thus in Figs. 1 and 2 it is provided with sockets for the reception of studs at the ends of the bars. In any case it affords a strong and rigid connection between the foot and the frame, so that the latter cannot be bent over under anything less than destructive pressure. This is especially the case when both uprights, F and G, are secured to the bearing-piece N, whether within or without the frame proper; but when within the frame and extending up between the uprights it stiffens and braces the latter.

The adjustment of the dash and foot is not necessarily limited to the mode described. For instance, it may be effected by means of a series of holes, affording a means of adjusting the foot at different points. When the foot is not required, the dash may be connected directly to the body with like advantage, as the points of connection may be varied to suit bodies of different widths.

The feature of lateral adjustability set forth therein is applicable to dashes and feet, or equivalent laterally-adjustable attachments, other than those particularly herein described.

There are eight claims in the patent, the first four of which alone are alleged to have been infringed, namely:

Without confining myself to any special mode of connecting the foot and dash adjustably, I claim

1. The combination of a dash and laterally-adjustable attachments, whereby the same may be connected to vehicles of different widths, substantially as set forth. 2. A dash or dash-frame having slots or openings, whereby attachments may be made at different points, substantially as and for the purposes set forth.

3. A dash provided with bearings having slots or openings, substantially as and for the purpose specified.

4. A dash-frame provided with bearings, arranged to strengthen the frame in those parts whereby the dash is to be connected to the laterally-adjustable feet or to the vehicle.

So much of the specification of Reissue No. 9,891 as is material, and the drawings referred to in it, are as follows:

One object of my invention is a novel construction of the dash-frame, whereby the latter is rendered light and strong, can be manufactured with little expense, and whereby the various portions of the frame are cheaply, readily, and firmly secured together, and also whereby the dash is cheaply, quickly, and firmly connected to a permanent or detachable portion of the vehicle.

Another object of my invention is a formation of a dash-foot for connecting a dash to a vehicle, whereby the foot is at once strong and light and can be cheaply manufactured.

Referring to the drawings forming part of this specification, Figure 1, A, B, C, and D represent a dash-frame constructed in accordance with my improvements, a section through the channeled lower rail of dash, and a sectional and perspective view

of my special form of bar. Fig. 2, E and F are a perspective and sectional view of a modification of the mode of attaching the bar to the lower rail of the dash, where said lower rail is channeled on only one side; and G is a perspective view, showing a portion of the lower rail channeled only on one side and a channeled foot of my invention attached thereto, showing the manner of attaching the foot to the lower rail by a T-headed bolt. Fig. 3, HI, Fig. 4, J K, and Fig. 5, L M, are sectional views, showing different modes of attaching the foot to the lower rail of the dash. Fig. 6 is a perspective view, showing how the extension e' of the upper bar may be riveted to the thin web or channeled portion of the lower rail.

A', Fig. 1, represents the lower rail of a dash-frame, channeled, as shown at B.