PARMELEE 'lI. A. BURRITT HABDWARE CO.
735
Justice Field. I don't mean to say that there may not be times in the history of a country, in certain communities, when everybody is armed. That was the case in the early days of California, when people traveled armed; but at this time, when law is supposed to be supreme, when all good men are supposed to obey it, and where counselors are sworn to obey the law and to see it properly administered, the carrying of arms into a court cannot for a moment be tolerated. Mr. Tyler. Your honor will excuse me one minute, as this is a personal matter, and a little personal reflection on myself, in view of another proceeding which has taken placeJustice Field. I know nothing of any other proceedingMr. Tyler, (interrupting.) But as expressed your opinion that a lawyer who, under any circumstances, should come into a court of justice armed should be disbarred, and that was my exact case, I certainly have a right to explain that circumstance. During the trial of a case in the superior court-Justice Field. We do not care about hearing of that. We cannot go into that matter at all. Mr. Tyler. Don't you consider that to make that assertion as an absolute assertion, when it applies directly to a member of the bar of this court, and has nothing to do with this matter, that the member may answer? You have made that assertion, and I went into a court-room armed with a pistol, for the purpose of preserving, as I supposed, my father's life and myown; and now I make the explanation. Ju,stice Field. It is not worth while to pass any words with the court. We do not take our rules of procedure from the state courts, and if any lawlessness is permitted there, we should not be governed by that fact. I trust I never shall be called to preside over a federal court where any lawyer will presume to come into it armed, and if he does, I shall exercise such authority as is vested in me to prevent it. Whatever may have been done in a state court, I know nothing about.
PARMELEE
and another v. A.
BURRITT HARDWARE
Co.
(CirCUit Oourt, D. Ounnecticut.
August 13, 1885.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INVENTION-PARMELEE FITlE-EXTINGUISHER.
Letters patent No. 218,564, granted August 12, 1879, to Henry 8. Parmelee, for an improved automatic tire-extinguisher, wherein the inventor made a sensitive extinguisher by placing the seal at the extreme outer end of the waterpipe, and so near the distributer that, when the joint of the seal was melted, the seal itself was forced into the distributer, and the water was left unobstructed, describe a patentable invention, and are valid.
S.
SAMB;-[NFRINGEMENT.
The defendants' extinguisher is an infringement, it not being imperative that the seal should be so constructed that the water should be below the joint.
In Equity. Oharles E. Mitchell and Bcnj. F. Thurston, for plaintiffs. John K. Beach and John S. Beach, for defendants. SHIPMAN, J. This is a bill in equity to restrain the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 218,564, granted August 12, 1879, to Henry
736
FEDERAL REPORTER.
s. Parmelee, for an improved antomatic fire-extinguisher. The disclaimer, which is a part of the specification, and the two claims of the patent, clearly point out the character and extent of the invention. The specification says: "I am aware that fire-Axtinguishers have been provided with seals within the body of the casing of Lhe distributer, and in connection with a valve arranged therein, and hence I make no claim to sllch construction. In my improvement the seal is located un the outer end uf the water-conduit, connected with the perforated distributer, whereby the seal is not only protected against accidental displacement, and also frum dust and dirt from the ceiling overhead, but is exposed most prominently to the action of the heat, which has direct entrance to the se.ll through the perforations in the distributer."
The claims are as follows: "(1) In an automatic fire-extinguisller, the combination, with a perforated distributer, of a seal attached to the extreme outer end of the water-condnit, {)onnected with the perforated distributer; said seal being retained in place by metal fusible at a low temperature, substantially as set forth. (2) In an automatic fire-extingUisher, the combination, with a perforated distributer, of a seal secured by fusible solder to the extreme outer end of the water-conduit, {)onnected with the distributer, and at a point within the body of the said perforated distributer, substantially as set forth."
The seal shown in figure 1 of the drawings and in the wooden model which is an exhibit in the case, is a flat disk or cap, the flange of which incloses the end of the water-pipe. The bottom of the cap is upon the end of the pipe, and the cap is secured by solder between the outer surface of the pipe and the inner surface of the flange. The patented device differs from the devices shown in the English patent to Lewis Roughton, of July 5, 1861, and in the United States patent to Brown & Foskett, of August 10, 1875, in the location of the seal, whereby the extinguisher is rendered more sensitive to the influence of heat and more prompt in its beneficial action. The Roughton device is complex and expensive, and has a quantity of metal near the seal which prevents prompt action of heat upon it. The Brown & Foskett seal is placed in the pipe leading to the T-shaped outlet to which the distributer is secured. The Parmelee seal, when the joint is melted, is forced into the distributer. The Brown & Foskett seal is delivered, when released, into a pipe attached to the opposite end of the T piece. The distinction between the Parmelee device and its predecessors is manifest and is patentable. The inventor made a sensitive extinguisher, by placing the seal at the extreme outer end of the water-pipe, and so near to the distributer that, when the joint of the seal was melted, the seal itself was forced into the distributer and the water was left unobstructed. The defendant's extinguisher has, instead of a flat cap, a semispherical cap at the extreme end of the water-pipe, but the flanges of the cap pass into the end of the pipe, instead of passing upon the outside of the end. Quoting from the testimony of Mr. Quimby, one of the defendant's experts, his description of the seal:
PARMELEE 'D. A. BURRITT HARDWARE CO.
737
"The Burritt seal is a short, hollow cylinder, having one closed hemispherical end. 'fhe exterior surface of this cylinder is secured by fusible solder to the interior of a nipple provided upon its exterior at both ends respect. ively with male screw-threads, the thread at one end being for engagement with the female thread-funnel within the neck of the perforated dibtributer. and the thread at the other end of the nipple being for effecting the connection of the nipple with the water-pipe. I understand that the special object in making the closed end of the seal in the Burritt extinguisher hemispherical is to increase the tendeucy of the seal to roll around the interior of the distributer after the seal has been released. and been projected into the distributer. As a consequence of this hemispherical shape of the closed end of the seal, the water contained within the conduit extends both above and below the soldered joint which is to be fused." The defendant contends that the fact that in the Burritt device the water extends above the soldered joint of the seal, whereas the water in the Parmelee device does not surround the joint, takes the Burritt device out of the Parmelee patent; and reliance is placed upon a clause in the specification which says: .. As the seal is secured within the distributer, which is usually made of metal,the rise of the temperature in a room or compartment will raise the temperature of the metal of which the distrihuter is made, and thus melt or fuse the joint between the seal and the distributer more readily than if water sUlTounded or was above the seal." The patentee was here referring to the advantage which his invention possessed over a previous invention which he had patented in 1874, in which the seal inclosed the distributer, and consequently the water filled the distributer and the space between it and tbe cap, and thus "surrounded the joint, and seriollsly retarded the melting of the solder;" but the patent now in suit, though a narrow one, is not to receive the extremely narrow construction which the defendant gives. According to the construction of one of its experts a flat Burritt seal would be within the patent, while a dome-shaped one would not be, and in the opinion of another expert a Parmelee flat-cap would be without the patent, if the flanges were inside instead of outside the extreme outer end of the water-pipe. Tbe gist of the invention was the location of the seal upon the extreme outer end of the water-conduit and connected with the distributer; but it is not imperative that the seal should be so constructed that the water should be below the fusible joint. Let there be a decree for the plaintiffs for an injunction and an accounting.
v.24F,no.13-47
188
FEDERAL BEl'ORTER.
CRANDALL and others v. PLANO MANUF'G Co. and others. (Circuit OOU1·t, N. D. Illinoi8. August 3, 1885.) P ATENTB FOR INVENTIONs-ROYAJ,TIEB-JURISDICTION IN EqUITY. The licenser in a license under letters patent having a plain, adequate, and complete at law, cannot mamtain a bill in equity for an accounting of royalties accruing under the license.
In Equity. Banning «Banning, for complainants. Colburn «Thacher, for defendants. BLODGETT, J. The bill in this case is demurred to on the ground that the complainants, by the showing of the bill, have a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law. The bill shows the issue of letters patent to one Bramer for certain devices pertaining to mowingmachines, and a license from Bramer to the defendant to use the patent, for which it was to pay as royalty the sum of three dollars for each machine, with the right to an abatement in case of prompt payment. The death of Bramer after making the license, and the appointment by him of complainants as executors of his will and trustees of the patent, is also averred. The bill charges that a large sum is due the complainants under this license, both for royalties which accrued before Bramer's death as well as since, and that the com· plainants do not know, and are unable to ascertain, the exact number of machines made by defendants, for which royalties are due under the license; and that complainants have demanded an accounting and payment as to the royalties so due, but that the defendant has failed to comply with such demands. It is also charged that through the defendant W. H. Jones, who is the president of the defendant com· pany, some kind of settlement has been made with the heirs and devisees of Bramer for the sum of $3,000, for which the note of the defendant company has been given, when, in fact, as much as $15,000 was due under the license, and that such pretended settlement is wholly void as against the complainants, who have the sole right to collect said royalty. The prayer is that the Plano Manufacturing Company be required to account with the complainants, and pay over all royalties, at the rate of three dollars for each machine not heretofore reported and paid for. I can see no reason why the complainants have not a "plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law," under the terms of the license as stated in the bill. The only question to be established is the number of machines made by the defendants under the license, which they have not accounted and paid for heretofore, and this can be established as readily and completely in a suit at law as in equity. Section 724, Rev. St., clothes the courts of law with full power to compel the production of books and papers in evidence under all circumstances