WRIGHT V. YUENGLING.
655
WRIGHT 11. YUENGLING. SAME
v. BEGGS.
Oourt, S.D. Nw York. February 18,1888.) 1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-ENGINE-FRA!oIES.
of a Patented horizontal engine-frame called for a cylinder for guiding the cross-head in combination with the cylinder head and semicircular connecting piece. Held, that an engine·frame in which there was no connecting piece between the cross-head guide and cylinder head, separate from the guide. the cross-head guide being bolted dIrectly to the cylinder head, did not infringe the patent.
2.
BAME-COMBINATION-ENGINE-FRA!oIES.
The second claim ofspecificati9ns in letters patent No.. 144.818, for an im· provement in frames for horizontal engines, called for the combination of the guiding cylinder. base. and trough-like Held, that the novelty of these elements consisted 801ely in the form of the parts; and that the patent was not valid as regards sucl). parts, as it covered, not the form, but mechanical operation oo:ly. .
In Equity. On bill for injunction. These suits were brought by William Wright against David G. Yuengling,Jr., and Johnston Beggs, to restrain the infringement of letters patent granted to complainant for an improvement in engine-frames. Andrew J. Todd, for plaintiff. BenjamitnF. Lee, for defendants. WHEELER, J. These !luits are brought upon alleged infringements of letters patent No. 144,818, dated November 18, 1873, and granted to tl1e orator lor an improvement in frames for honzontal engines. The ·specification qescribes an engine-frame consisting of a cylinder head, connected with.acylindrical cross-head guide having openings giving access ·to the by a cylindrical piece having a circular opening in itS up·per side giving accessto the stuffing-box of the cylinder head; of a troughshaped piece the other end of the cros!l"head guide with a base, and raised on one side over th!3 base to furnish a support for the crankshaft, and curved downward between the sides to make room for the COnnecting-rod; and of a strengthening rib under the'cross-head guide and its connections from the base to the cylinder head. There are three claims: in which.a cylinder for guiding The first is for a horizontal the cross-head is pombinedwith the cylinder head and semicircular connecting piece, 'substantially in the manner described; the second is for the combination ina horizontal engine-frame of the guiding cylinder, base, and trough-like connection; and the third is for a horizontal engine-frame composed of the cylinder head, guidiJ;lg cylinder, connectingpiece, trough, base, and web, all combined substantially in the manner described. question is whether the defendants have taken any part of the orator's invention that is patentable, and has been actually patented to him in this patent. A corporation with which the defendant in one case is connected as an officer has made and sold to the defendant in the other. case, who has uSt:ld, &n engine with a frame consisting of a cylindrical cross-head guide, with openings in its sides giving access 'to
656
FEDERAL REPORTER.
the cross-head and stuffing-box, bolted to the cylinder head, and oLa trough-like connection between the guide and base, and of a base and a strengthening web like those of the orator's patent. This engine-frame has no connecting piece the cross-head guide and cylinder-head, separate from the guide, but the cross-head guide is bolted directly to the cylinder head, and the latter does not form any part of what is called the engine-frame" in the patent. Therefore the combination of the first elaim is not to be found in that engine-frame, and that claim is not infringed by it. The trough-like connection between the cross-head guide and base, of the second claim, penorms nothing new, nor anything different from other connections in that place; neither does the guide, or the base of that claim do anything more or different from what other guidEls alld bases in the same relations had previously done; and these parts together do nothing new, or anything in any new way, or with any different effect from what similar parts had fora long time previously done. If anything new is involved in this combination it consists iIi the form of the respective parts, or some of them; and such new form is not covel'edby this patent. Therefore this claim does not cover any patentable invention, and is not valid. Machine Co. v. Murphy, 97 U. S. 120. The third claim covers all the parts of a horizontal engine-frame, including the cylinder-head, as an element, in combination. As the, engine-frame of the defendants does not take in the cylinder head as a part '. of it, after the manner of the patent, and has not the connecting piece of thepatentbetweeri the cross-head guide and cylinder head, it does not 'appear to infringe that claim. And, generally, steam-engines have had and must have rigid frames connecting the working cylinders with the crank-shafts to keep them in 'their proper relative positions; and horizontal engines have had and must have bases to sustain the parts. The cross-head guide usually lies in the direction of the frame, and, is, connected with or forms a part of it. Cylindrical guides were not l1ew this invention, and those composed of, bar\! for slides were open, affording access to the cross-heads and to the stuffing-boxes of the cylinder heads. There would not appear to be ,any patentable invention in leaving openings for such access in cylin,drical guides. " The orator added no ne'lt part but the connecting piece, which the frame of the defendantsdoesnot have. The parts made use of the defendants operate precisely in the same manner that"shriilarpal'ts'operated before his invention, and accomplish precisely 't.h'e, same result. The form given by him to several of the parts appears toJjetakeh, but the form was not patented. The patent 'covers only and does not appear to be valid to cover anything of that which has been taken. E8tey v. Burdett, 109 U. S. 633, 3 Sup. 'Ot: ,Rep. 531; Heating 00. v.Burti8, 121 U. S. 286, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1034. ," ", " , , , Onltny vi,e'" which the case iscapabJe of the patent does not appear tob'eva.lid, iIi any part covering the engine-frame of the defendants, if at all. Le'f there be a decree dismissing the bill of complaint, with (I
costs.
'
L"i RE ROSDEITSCHER.
657
In re
ROSDEITSCHERt
(District Oourt, E. D. Virginia, January 8,1888,) Const U. S. art. 3. § 2, lll. 3, forbids the finding of an indictment in one state of the Union for a crime committed in another state, and where there can be ZIO indictment there can be no original complaint. J. SaME. The jurisdiction of United States courts In respect to crimes committed in other states is ancillary in character. and cannot be exercised unless it is shown that accused is a "fugitive from justice." and has been "demanded" by the proper authorities of the state where the crime was committed. 8, 8.A..¥E-,-COMiTY. , The of m,?difies the rule just stated in cases of un· , doubted flight from JustICe and evasIOn of process. 1. COURTS- FEDERAL JURISDICTION-CRIMES.
Application for Habeas Ccrrpus. , E. Waddill,Jr.,and Wm. Flegenheimer, {or petiiioner. J. C. Gibson, U. S. Dist. Atty, , for the United States. HUGHES, J. The controlling facts of this case are as follows: Complaitit was made on' the 26th of December, 1887, before a commissioner oHhe 'United StateS circuit court here, by one Samuel Sapovits, charging that the defendant,c:m March - , 1887, passed a counterfeit $20 United States national bank-bill upon him, in the Pennsylvania. Upon 'this complaint,filed here as an original proceeding, the commissioner , issued his warrant of arrest, which was duly executed, and, after a hearing of the matter, the defendant was committed to jail, under section 1014 of the Revised Sta.tutes of the United States. On petition before me a writ ofluibeas corpus was granted on the 3d January, 1888, and, on an 'inspection of the complaint, and of such papers as were filed in the caee, the defendant was discharged from jail, and set at large, no demand for his arrest hllving been made from Pennsylvania, and no official or other notification having been given here, from there, that the authorities there Were prosecuting, or intended to prosecute, the case. My reasons' for discharging the prisoner are founded on elementary 'principles. ' An indictment cannot be found in one state of this Union for dfi'enRe committed in another. This is forbidden by clause 3 of section 2 of article 3 of the national constitution. This cannot be done either in a state court or in a United States court. The national constitution gives no authority to the United States to take original cognizance in one state of crimes committed in another state. That instrument does no more, in clause 2 of section 2 of article 4, than to provide that "a person charged in any state with crime committed in another state, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of that other state, be delivered up and removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime." In short, it is fundamentally true that the jurisdiction of a in one state is as distinct from that of a like court in another state as the jurisdiction of the v.33F.no.12-42
an
(i58
,FEDERAL REPORTER.
supreme court of Pennsylvania is distinct from that of the supreme court of Virginia. Section l014·of the Revised Statutes of the United States was enacted in order to effectuate, so far as it should lie in the province of the United States courts to do so, this provision of the constitution. The terms of the section, though general, must be construed with reference to the constitutional provision which it was designed to carry into -effect. The judges and other officers of the United States courts act, in respect to crimes committed in other states own, essentially in a character ancillary to the authorities of the jurisdiction in which the cnIDa was 'committed. In order to the exercise even of this ancillary Jurisdiction, it is essential that the person accused of the extraterritorial crime must be "demanded " by the authorities of the locality of the crime, and must himself have" fled from justice." There is nothing in the case fhis' defendant to give it the"character of flight justice, and of demand for him from the jurisdiction of the allegedcdme. As there can be no original indictment for such crime here, so be no original complaint .against him here.' .Whatever is done-all that is done-here must be essentially alJ.,cillary We must know from the authorities of the locality of the crime, in the form of demand, ,prosecution is in that jurisdiction, a,nd that the defendant from there,or is at least evading their process. The proper for· the complainant in this. case to have. was to have gone to Pennsylvania and mll,deor have. sent his complaint there, and caused a de.mand to be made from there for his arrest here. In. that condition ofaffairs it have been competent for this court and its officers to ,have made arrest, and proceeded under the provisions ,of section 1014. The prisoner is discharged; but this will not prevent the institution of proceediqgsj in Pennsylvania, and a demand of him fortdal there. It does not appear that· he is endeavoring to fr,om this district.. It is,tnw that occur in which thea\lthoritiesof one sta.te arrest persons believed; to be charged with offenses'C()mmitted in another, 8l).d hold them untiUorma,1 demand is made with proper documentary auth().l'ization. But iUs never pretended that such{ action is 8trictijuris. It originated in that spirit of comity which subsists between judicial tri.bunals, .and is justified by the necessity for prompt a,ction which exists most of, the cases of· flight from justice, and evaaiop.s of process. In case consid!'lr/ltionthe accused is not a fugitive, and no necessity exists for holding him in custody.
of
GRAND RAPIDS E. L. & "Po 00. 11.
RAPIDS B. Eo L. & F. G. 00.
659
GRAND J:tAPIDS E. L. & P.CO. 'V. GRAND RAPIDS E.E. L. & F. G. I Co. et ai. (Oircflit (Jourt, W; D. Michigan, S. D. January ll. 1888.) , MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-POWlms-EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES.
A city charter gave the council power to make. amend, and repeal any ordinances deemed desirable for lighting the streets. and taking charge of them. but did not confer, in express terms. exclusive power over them. Held. that it did not, by implication. give the city control of the streets to the exclusion of the sovereign power of the state, and that an ordinance granting exclusive use of the streets for wires and poles for electric lights for 15 years was ultJra "ires and void.
In Equity. Motion to dissolve preliminary injunction. The Grand Rapids Electric Light & Power Company filed a bill to perpetually enjoin the "Grand Rapids Edison Electric Light & Fuel Gas Company and -others from erecting poles and wires in the streets of Grand Rapids, and obtained a temporary injunction. The city of Grand Rapids had, ordinance in 1880, given complainant exclusive right to use the streets for that purpose for 15 years, and in 1887, by ordinance, had giveildefendant the same privileges, .but not exclusively. T. J. O;Brien and J. H. Campbell, for defendant, on motion to dissolve the injunction. Const. 4, § 38,llrovides that the legislature may confer on cities sucp powers of a local, legislative, and administrative power as they see fit. Art. 15, § 13, gives the legislature power to incorporate cities. Art. 15, 13, provides that corporations may be formed under a general law, and that laws purilUant to this section may he repealed, altered, and amended. Grand Hapids was incorporated under a special law. Complainant was incorporatpd undel' Public Acts 1875, (with amendments of 1881, 1882,) 1 How. St. c. 124, 4127-4161. The cllarter of Grand Hapids March 29, 1877, tit. 3, § 10, g'dve the council power to make, alter,a.nd,repeal ordinances for (25) regulating the lighting streets and alleys, also (35) gpneral care of the streets. (36,) lighting public lamps, and their erection, (title 6. § 1.) supervision of streets, highways,,'etc.,' and the clellning, and altering of the same. The city llad no power thereunder to "grant exclusive use of the streets for the purposes stated. It had only (1) the powers directly granted; (2) those necessarily ii:\lplit'd: (3)' those indispensable to the proper purposes of the corporation. 1 DiU. Mun.Corp. § 89, and caseS cited; Detroit v. Blackeby, 21 Mich. 84. The has paramount 8uthorityover the public ways. 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. §§656, ,680, and cases cited. ,The city could confer no greater power thanit'had, ahd to give mURt have exclusive control of the streets. East Ha,rifordv:BridgeCo.,10 How. 511; Mintum v. Larue. 23 How. 435: rison,v. Stilte,9 Mo. 530: McEwen v. Taylor, 4 G. Greene, 532: Wtight v. Nagle,lOI U.s. 796. The city had no express exclusive control of the streets. It wn:S'hOt implied. In Grand Rapids v. Whittlesey, 33 Mich. 109, theprovisions of the charter of 1871, relating to the matters in controversy, were substantially as now. The court held their control of streets was tlIat given usually to cIties. In Gale v· Kalamazoo, 23 Mich. 344, the trustees gave Gale a contract tlJ erect a market house, with an agreement that. there should be no other;'held'ihvalid.' Wright v. Nagle, 101 U. 8.791: Held that an inferior oourt,whiob-granted exclusive privileges for ferries and bridges over certain