« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
words, in order to infringe this claim the work must be done in substantially the same manner, and by substantially the same mechanism, as shown in complainants' patent; if other mechanism is used, or more or less of the mechanism which is shown by the complainants is used to accomplish this result, then there is no infringement of this claim. The only ground upon which this claim can be sustained at all is that it is a claim for diagonal printing, to be accomplished by the means shown, and not for diagonal printing as a result, nor can it be held to cover a mere mode of working or manipulating a common printing-press when no material changes are made in its mechanism, and only the working position of one or more of its movable parts is changed.
The second claim is for a combination of old and well-known parts of a cylinder chromatic printing-press and the nippers, “each successively longer than the other, with their working ends in a line diagonally across the cylinder” and the vibratory guides, and no one can be charged with infringement of this patent unless he uses the whole combination, or known substitutes therefor. The defendants do not use the vibratory guides which form a part of complainants' combination, nor any substitute therefor; but adjust their sheets diagonally upon the feeding-board, and deliver them to the cylinder corner ways, by the aid of pins fixed in the feeding-board, by means of which the sheet is delivered upon the cylinder at the proper angle, to correspond with the angle at which the form is placed upon the bed of the press. The defendants also use long and short nippers, so arranged as to form a V, corresponding nearly to the shape of the corners of the sheet to be taken hold of.
The proof also shows that diagonal printing, either in several colors or one color, is not new to the printing art, and also that pins upon the feeding-board, as a means of obtaining such an adjustment of the sheet on the board as will secure its delivery on the cylinder at the proper angle or position, to correspond to the form on which it is to be printed, was old and well known long before this patent was obtained. The proof showing that defendants have only used pins as the means for arranging their sheets upon the feeding-board, and that they do not use the guides described by the complainants, I am of opinion they do not infringe either of the claims of the patent, because their pins are not the equivalent of the complainants' guides, but are such devices for arranging the sheets upon the feeding-board as were well known to printers long before this inventor entered the field. It is true, defendants use nippers which correspond in their function and effect to those described in complainants' patent; but the defendants' nippers are not arranged "each successively longer than the others, and with their working ends in a line extending diaganally across the cylinder," but they are arranged so that their working ends form a triangle or V. It is also true that defendants did not remove the guides from their press, but simply turned them back upon the shaft. This, however, is equivalent to a removal of the guides, as they performed no part in the work of holding or adjusting the sheets.
I may add that I see nothing in what the defendants have done more than the mere mechanical adaptation of their machine to a peculiar kind of work which did not require invention. Their press with its working appliances, such as the nippers and feed-board, was, arranged to do square printing. They could arrange a form in the bed of the press so that it could be printed lengthways or crosswise, and must feed the sheets into the press so as to correspond with the form. If it became desirable or fashionable to print in colors diagonally, it was obvious, it seems to me, to any mechanic or man of ordinary mechanical skill accustomed to the working of such a printing-press, that in order to print diagonally all he had to do was to place his form at the required angle on the bed of the press and feed the sheets so that they would be delivered by the cylinder upon the form at the same angle with the form. To do this more surely, defendants changed the nippers so that they would grasp the corner of the sheet, and placed the sheet at the proper angle on the feeding-board by the aid of pins. Penciled or inked lines might probably be used for the same purpose, although it would require a more expert feeder to do the work. So, too, the ordinary nippers used for square work may be used by the defendants' process, as was demonstrated by some actual work done in the presence of the counsel and myself on a visit to the defendants' press-room, although it is probable they would not always secure so perfect a register with the short nippers, as with nippers arranged in V shape.
I cannot, therefore, see in what defendants have done anything more than one of those allowable mechanical changes which any skilled manipulator of a printing press, familiar with its capacities for doing various kinds of work, may make to adapt his machine to his work. The art of printing in blended colors has been greatly cheapened by late inventions pertaining to the chromatic press, with which complainants' invention has nothing to do. The only claim of these inventors is that they have devised a new and useful mode of printing those blended colors diagonally across the card, instead of printing them in bars parallel to the sides or ends of the card, and I only intend to be understood as holding in this case that defendants do not infringe, because they do not use all the complainants' combination, and because they do their work on a chromatic press, without making any substantial changes in its mechanism. The bill is therefore dismissed for want of equity, on the ground that I find that there is no infringement of complainants' patent.
(District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. December 1, 1882.)
Where a sailing vessel was obliged to anchor several miles off shore, to hold against the current and ice coming down Delaware bay, and the crew sought safety by getting ashore in small boats, leaving the vessel in an unsafe position, intending to return with a tug, and engaged to assist & vessel with a wrecking crew, who, being unable to put their own tugs through the ice, obtained a city ice-boat, owned and used by the city for the purpose of breaking up ice, keeping the channel open, and also performing towage service for pay, and they took the vessel in tow, picked up her crew on their return, and succeeded with difficulty in getting the vessel into the port of Philadelphia several days afterwards, the facts do not make a case of technical derelict, but all who
participated in the rescue must be regarded as salvors. 2. PUBLIC VESSELS-CITY ICE-BOAT-DUTY OF.
A city ice-boat, owned and used by the city for the purpose of breaking up ice, keeping the channel open, and performing towage service for pay, is under no more obligation to rescue a wrecked or disabled vessel than other vessels equally competent and similarly situated; if, however, the master was more intent upon making salvage than discharging his first duty of keeping navi. gation open, this fact should be considered, and he should be rewarded accord
ingly, or not at all. 3. RATE OF COMPENSATION,
The sum allowed for salvage service should be sufficient to cover the expense, time, labor, skill, risk to property and person, and to reward fully the enterprise displayed. In this case, (value of ice-boat being $245,000, having a crew of 30, the wreckers having 8 or 10 men, the value of the bark, cargo, and freight being about $28,600,) the circumstances of the case do not call for a largo
award, or any given proportion of the property saved; $2,500 is sufficient. 4. DISTRIBUTION AMONG LIBELANTS.
Distribution will be referred to a commissioner, who may take further testi. mony of the conduct of the master of the ice-boat, if it be deemed necessary, and the subject be considered in the distribution.
*Reported by Albert B. Guilbert, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
Libel filed by Henry F. Virden, master of City Ice-boat No. 3, on behalf of himself as master, and of the city of Philadelphia as owner, and of the crew of said boat, consisting of 30 men, against the bark Arendal, setting forth that on the fourth day of February, 1881, the boat, with an additional crew of eight or ten wreckers, proceeded to search for the bark Arendal, reported to have been abandoned in the ice fields off the Delaware capes, and after great difficulty found the bark at 1 o'clock P. m. in a dangerous position, 15 miles from Cape Henlopen and 5 miles off shore, hard fast in the ice, drifting seaward, and at a distance of 10 miles from the place where she had been abandoned; that proceeding with great difficulty the bark was towed into harbor at breakwater, at 11 o'clock P. M. of the same day, and afterwards the boat picked up the crew of the bark, who had come from the life-saving station near Indian river, and continued with her tow through the ice, reaching Walnut street, Philadelphia, at 3 P. M., February 8, 1881; that the ice-boat was built by the city of Philadelphia costing $245,000, and was not constructed for the character of service performed, and the value of the bark, her cargo, and freight is $28,600. Wherefore the libelants claimed to be entitled to salvage. Also a libel filed by E. J. Morris for E. J. Morris & Co., wreckers, setting forth that on the third day of February, 1881, libelants contracted with the master of the bark, which was then outside Rehobeth beach, leaking and nearly cut through with ice, to get the bark and tow her into the breakwater, and to stay by and deliver her to the port of Philadelphia, comensation therefor to be left to the board of marine underwriters of Phil. belphia; that the libelants were unable, on account of the ice, to ise their tugs North America and Pioneer, and therefore procured the City Ice-boat No. 3, and with eight or ten of their own men proceeded in her, under the command of her captain, to the bark, and finally with danger and difficulty towed the bark into Philadelphia. Wherefore the libelants claim salvage to be awarded, since the city iceboat had filed a libel, and the compensation could not, therefore, be determined by the board of underwriters.
The respondents, in answer to both libels, claimed that the bark had not been abandoned; that Morris & Co. had failed to perform their contract, but assisted and acted under the command of the city ice-boat, whose master acted badly in refusing to pick up the crew of her bark, while attempting to return, and in not taking them up tintil after the bark was in tow, and also in persisting in charge of
the tow after her crow had declined their assistance, and contended that towage services only had been rendered, for which the regular rate would be less than $250, while $500 had been offered in settlement and refused; that the interests of commerce required that salvage should be refused to the city ice-boat, who acted without any contract with the trustees and in the line of its duty, being owned, equipped, and run by the city for the purpose of breaking the ice, keeping the channel clear, and performing towage services for pay, according to a schedule of rates adopted under & city ordinance, (West, Dig. 199,) which provided :
Sec. 2. “It shall be lawful hereafter for the trustees of the ice-boat to charge and collect such rates of towage for the services of the ice-boats under their care as they may deem best for the interests of the commerce of this port."
Sec. 3. “It shall be lawful for the trustees of the city ice-boat to allow the said boat to be used upon an occasion of imminent peril to any ship or vessel, for the relief of such ship or vessel, whether the same be needed in the Delaware river or bay, or on the adjacent coast: provided, tho said boat shall always be first insured for a proper amount by the person for whose benefit she shall be so employed, and that the trustees make such charge for such use of Baid boat as they may deem adequate therefor."
Wm. Nelson West and Wm. H. Addicks, for ice-boat and city of Philadelphia.
A public vessel is entitled to salvage. The Cybele, 37 Law Times Rep. 165.
Alfred Driver and J. Warren Coulston, for the crew of the iceboat.
Theodore M. Etting and Henry R. Edmunds, for Morris & Co.
The contract, not being for a sum certain, is no bar to a claim for salvage. The A. D. Patchin, 1 Blatchf. 414; Adams v. Island City, 1 Cliff. 216; Coffin v. The Shaw, Id. 235. The claim does not depend upon the status of other salvors. The Blackwall, 10 Wall. 1; The Ewbank, 1 Sumn. 416; Adams v. Island City, supra; Norris v. Island City, 1 Cliff. 219.
Edward F. Pugh and Charles C. Lister, for the Arendal. Misbehavior bars claim for salvage. The Choteau, 9 Fed. Rep.
The bark was not a derelict. The Hyderabad, 11 FED. REP. 749; The Cosmopolitan, 6 Notes Cas. (Supp.) 17; The Aquilla, 1 C. Rob. 40. A public vessel, acting in the line of its duty, not entitled to salvage. 2 Parsons, Shipp. 273, note 6; 7 Op. Atty. Gen. 756; The Choteau, 9 FED. REP. 211; Davey v. The Mary Frost, 2 Woods, 306; The Josephine, 2 Blatchf. 322. The ice-boat may claim the