DJ)QAL B.1IPOB'l'D,
, ;' >-l '..-;
voL li9- . '.
ctensioIlJ the. same, as already oonstruedand adJt':idlcatett.inttivor of thecomplillnant's patent. :Let there be a decree for an ihj1fudtidn and an accounting. ' " , " :. i ' ,
SAWYER SPINDLB
Co. 6t al··· W. G. &A. R.
MORRISON
Co.
(o.rcuu Oourt,
September 26,1892.)
In letters patent No. 25S,571,tssuetlFebruai'Y'l4, 1882, to John ,Ill. Atwood, tor an improved support for spindles,insplunlng maohlne., the oharaoteristio feature ,ot tbe lnvention ls"a supporting tube wh10h Is fiexibly mounted with relation to the spindle rail, and contaitis the step and bolster bearingllfor the spindle, so that the latter and "ill tuJ>e togethllr laterally In all direc,tlons during the selfadjustment of the IIplndle, .whUeoarr.YJ.ng an unequally balanced bobbin and its yarn luste d of relying upon the movement of the IIpindle and its bearinjr within and IndependentJy of the Supporting tul>e, as heretofore." Held, that t,hlll invention possessed patentable novelty over the spindle support of Francis J. Rabbeth, covered by letteN' patent No. 227,129, 1II.uedio 1880, and over the unpatented Dan, fonh spindle of 1842. , ' , .. ' , The 2d, Sd, and 5th claims efthe Atwood patent are il1frlug'ed by a devioe sub.tanttally similar in form, the' bottom, of l\upporting tube ill surJ;'ounded bya olofJed oil oup, whicb prevents thefaoility,and promptness with whioh thellexibUityof tbe spindle:can be graduated; fora copyl.t cannot escape infringement by a4ding 'fea'ures which hinder the patented from exhibitio, ,lOme of ita minor, advantages. " ,
.. , SAMIil-INFR1WGEMIIlNT-COLOR.ulLBClIANG:B8.
In'Equity. " Bill by the Sawyer Spindle Company' and others against theW. & A. R. Morrison Comps,t.t:rfor infringement of a patent. Decree for co'mplttinants. " ' Pish, Richard80n & Storrow, for (!oDlplainants. Charla L. Burdett, for defendant. ' SI{IPMAN,.CircuitJudge. This Is 'a bill in equity, which is founded \:ipon thtfalle{:(ed o{'leiters patent to JohnE. Atwood, No. dated ,an for spindles The, appllcatIOn ,was filed February 27, 1880. The invention was. made, iii Jtily, 1818,'and antedates the patents to 214,750; the"Engllshpatelit to Haddan, sealed 'Fehruary' 7,1879, and the two pil:terlts to J. E.Braunsdorf, Nos. '214,'Mtfahd 214,356,-which were all applied for itl,orafter September, 1878. The step ofa spindle is the lower end of its vertical shaft, and Ii-evolves within the step bearing in Which it is 'located. The bOlster of is part, and revolves withiI;l the blillster beari?g, whleb' ,lS a, nng surroundmg the 'bolster ,Formetly the step bearmg #,hsJ)laced in a ho'rfwnfalrail, beating was mounted ihother rail,8upported st,ep rail, each Of these bearings berigid. 'The spindle 'Carnes 'a bobbin iind its yarn load, and 'nEllther of the three is wide ptirfectly true, and therefore neither is ,equally balanced. The iheqqalities 'of the load create a tendency to vi.. . 'j
! . : ..'"
I'
'.
·
SAWYER SPINDLE CO. V. W. G. &: A. R. MORRISON CO.
591
brations or" gyrations" of the spindle, which must have high speed, if rapid work is to be attained. A construction of the bearings should permit the spindle to yield laterally, and thus permit greater speed, was important. The bolster rail, upon which was mounted a nearly rigid boll?ter bearing, was therefoi'e disused, and a spindle was constructed, and is commonly. used, with a sleeve attached to the spindle blade so as to encompass a support containing the bolster bearing. The step bearing is in the closed end of the bolster support, and the frame requires only one spindle rail. The Atwood invention is of this class of spindles, and was an improvement upon the spindle support of FrancisJ. Rabbeth. which was invented in 1878, and was patented in 1880, by letters patent No. 227" 129. The priority of the Rabbeth invention is admitted in the Atwood patent. The Rabbethstructnre had a supporting tube rigidly connected with the rail i a bolster bearing, which was a thin tube affording a lateral bea.ring surface for the spindle; a yielding cushion between the bolster bearing and the supporting tube; and a step bearing within the supporting tube. This tube may constitute the step bearing, but the step bearing and the bolster bearing are separate and consequently the spindle and the bolster bearing can vibrate in all directions. This spindle had a rapid sale. It had great capacity for speed, because the yielding packing or cushions cushioned its vibrations; but, using the language of Gen. Draper, of the Hopedale Mill, whose firm built and sold it, and whose experience in spindle manufacture makes him a very competent witness, "owing to the narrow space in which the cushion is necessarily confined, it will not serve its cushioning purpose satisfactorily, if the vibrations or gyrations become extreme." The packing was beaten upon as the spindle vibrated, "became thin, and was cut in two at the space between the bolster and the step." The specification of the Atwood patent says: "The characteristic feature of my present invention is a supporting tube. which is fleXibly mounted with relation to the spindle rail. and contains the step and bolster bearings for the spindle. so that the latter and said tube may move together laterally tuaU directions during theself-adjustmellt of the spindle. while carrying an) unequally balanced bobbin and its yarn. instead of relying upon the movement of the spindle and its bearings Within and independently of the supporting tube, as heretofore in this class of spindles. By reason of my improvement. the means Whereby the movable capacity or flexibility of the spindle illatforded are rendered openly accessible, and more easily renewed. if Heed be. than heretofore; and, further. elastic materials may be successfully employed. which would be liable to injury and rendered inelastic by oil if located within the supporting tube, as heretofore. I am also enabled to readily graduate the degree of flexibility of the spindle with relation to the spindle ruil. so as to accommodate the self-adjusting capacity oft1l.e spindle to the various conditions incident to ,its use in working with bobbins materially differing in size and weight. All of these advantages are due to the novel characteristic feature before referred to."
The claims of the patent, which are said to have been infringed by the,defendant, are as follows: '
592
, Jl'EDlllRAL REPORTER,
vol. 52.
The cOIllJ:>ination.substantially as hereinbefore described. with a spindle rall, of a sleeve whirl dliven spindle. a base piece rigidly fixed to the spindle rail. and a bolster and step mounted loosely in said base piece, and secured thereto. by a yielding attachment. as set forth. (3) The com bination, substantially as hereinbefore described, of a spindle rail of a spinning machine, a spindle. and a supporting tube. flexibly mounted with relation to the spindle rail, and containing step and bolster bearings. '* * * (5) The combination uf the spindle rail, the spindle, the supporting tube, loosely mounted with relation to the rail, and containing the step and bolster bearings for the spindle, the spring. and the nut fOl' compressing it. substantially as described." ' The bolster bearing and tpestep bearing are formed in one tribe, called the supporting tube) and consequently move together, and are in line with oochotber. Tqe connection between this tube and the rail is yielding. A hole Iflrger than the tube is bored throilgh the rail, or tho rail, and the lower elld of the connecting through a base tu,be. is extended thrqughthe, rail far enough to enable the tube to be se· cured by a nut at its lo\,\:or end. and by a spiral spring surfQunding the tube l.>elow the rail. "The spring serves as a cushion against the rockor tipping ofthespiu\lle," and is strong enough to resist a heavy By altering, the .position of the nut, the pressure of the spring can be adjnsted to different loads upon the spindle. In. one form of the device, a cushion, of leather is placed between the flange of the tube and the top of therail.,1nanother fornl,shown in Fig. 4 of the drawings, this, annulus is omitted; the,tube d.oes not rest upon the rail, but upon a base tightly secured in The spiral spring bears against the instead of agaillstthe bottom of the rail. The supbottom of the porting tube, which formed ):>otl1 the step bearing and the .bolster and flexibly mounted upon or in relation to the supporting rail, the tube moving out of position under the influence of the vibrations of the spindle, together with the manner in which the tube is secured to the rail, so that graduated pressure can be given and strength can be secqred, are the important features of the patented device. It had room and' strength to resist heavy strains, speedily received favorable recognition and success, and has gone largely into use. The comwhich is flexibly sebined bolster bearing and step bearing cured to the ba,se piece or rail, distinguishes it from the Rabbeth device. The defense is twofold: (1) That the improvement is not a patentable invention; and, (2) if it is, it is orso narrow a character that there is no infringement. Upon the question of patentability, the contention is that self-adjustingspindles and supporting tubes, which contain both step and bolster bearing, are old, and that a spiral spring. and nut, for the purpose of a yielding support to a sleeve ora spindle, are also old, invention in moving the flexible connecting means and that there was. from a point adjacent to the rail, as in the Danforth spindle, or from within the tube, as"in the Rabbeth spindle, and pulling it on the out.' sideof the below the rail.. This statement gives but an imperfect account and idea of the patented invention. There were in pre-
lAWYER SPINDLE CO. ,. W. G. & A. R. MORRISON CO.
li93
vious stmctures-for instance, in the Rabbeth device-a tube which might be said to contain or include the two bearings for step and bolster, but there was no tube which combined the two bearings in one piece of metal, so that both moved with the spindle and in line with each other, whereby the danger that one of the bearings would bind upon the spindle was removed. It is true that prior devices contained somewhere a yielding spring and a nut. The spring or cushion of the Rabbeth device has already been explained. The unpatented Danforth spindle of 1842 had a dead spindle with a rotating sleeve, which carried the bobbin and was itself moved up and down on the dead spindle by a traveling rail, with which it was connected by a spring plate, spring, and nut. This spindle wllsof an entirely different class from that' of the Rabbeth and Atwood spindles, it had no supporting tube, and the mechanism contains no idea o( adapting itself to the vibrating movements of the rotating sleeve. The fact that it had a spiral spring has no bearing upon the question of patentability. The flexible support of the Atwood tube below the rail is far more than a change of the position of the Rabbeth cushion from the inside of his tube. The result is to cushion, but the method by which the cushioaing is produced is very different. 1.'he spindle of the defendants does not have the washer below the flange of the tube, and therefore does not infringe the first and fourth claims of the patent. Instead of screwing the base piece of drawing No. 4 into the rail, the defendant inserts in the hole through which the base piece would pass an oil cup, which is also secured in the rail with a set screw. It is the Atwood spindle of drawing No.4, plus an oil cup, and, if the oil cup was omitted, it is substantially admitted that infringement would exist. But it is claimed that the improvement, if patentabIt, at all, is a narrow one, and consists in the specific arrangement of the flexible Ct nnection so placed as to secure certain advantages, and that, if another mode is adopted which does not !!eCure these advantages, there is no infringement. Surrounding the bottom of the tube with a closed cup does prevent the nut and spring from being easily accessible, and prevents the facility and promptness with which the flexibility of the spindle could be graduated; but a copyist cannot escape the charge of infringement by adding to his copy a feature which hinders the pat. ented combination from exhibiting some of its minor advantages. Lei there be a decree for an infringement of the 2d, 3d, and 5th and for an accounting. v.52F.no.6-3S
/;,:' ",','
. SEATTLE (Cir(ltdt 1·. l\JIli[QVM.OP
& M. Ry.Co. v. STATE et D. 94.,1892.) PROCEEDINGS.
,. '.froceedings tor thecondetnnation of a right of way in the state of Washington caIUl:Ot bei'emoved into.afederal court by corporations. of Oregon and New York, as defendan.ts, unless the record shows a separable controversy. ProCleMings for·the dOlidenmationof aright of way cannot be removed into a federal court bya fedeMlol corpor/ltion joined as a defendant, when ,it does not apQorporation is.. concerned in the litigation, for in such case the record (loes not shoW 'that tMcase 1s one arising under the· constitution and laws of the UIrltedStates;UmonPac. Ry. Co. v. Kamas CUy, and Un1.on Pac. By. Co. v. MY8'l'8"tl Sup. Ct. U. S. 1, distinguished. CO!U'OMTION. .
9.
At Law. brought by the Seattle & Mon· tana Railway Company against the state of Washington, the Columbia & Puget Sound Railroad:. Company, the Oregon Improvement CQmpany, the Farmers' Loari.& Trust Company, the Northel'n Pacific. & Puget Sound Shore Railroad Oompany, the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, /lnd King county, to secure aright of way. The$.ction waS commenced in the superiorconrtof the state of WaElhingtoo for King county, and, re. moved into the United ,States circuit oourt by.the Northern Pacific Rail. roadComplliny, them-egan Improvement,Compa:ny, and the Farmers' Loan & Trust Company. On motion ,to remand. Granted. Burke, Shepherd &- .WoodB, for plaitltiff. A. F. BVA'ltiegh, for. defendants.' HANFo'RD,District JUdpe.. ' The Seattle & Montana Railway Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Washingtol1, and owner of the western division of the transcontinental line known as the "Great Northern Railway;" commenced this proceeding in the superior court of the state df Washingtou forKing county, for condemnation, under the laws of state, fo'r right. of way purposes, of a strip 60 feet ",ide in Railrbad in the city.'of Seattle, extending from the northern line of Yesler, avenue in a southerly direction to the location ora site selected fOf its proposed depot and terminal ground; and a strip of the same width for a qranch curving from. Railroad avetllie near King street, in a southeasterly direction, and extending to the- City limits. The scheme involves the crossing and recrossing of two existing lines of railway by four tracks, each of which is designed to be operated as part of the main line of said transcontinental railway; and also a crossing by said four tracks of spur tracks, wharves, and other permallent improvements, and the rebuilding or removal of existing inclines and elevated railway tracks, which were constructed and are in use for convenience in the transfer of freight from cars to ships and vice versa. The space which the plaintiff is thus seeking to appropriate is upon the