,.FEDli<RAT, ,REl'ORTER,' vol.
53.;
8idera:tioU&'<lf:"safetyol"otherWiseforthe general -widtho'f, the 'car. of 1$ a bay lvindow 'which projeCtsbeyoild the side of the car as 'm one which, as the complainant puts it, is in and a part of the side of the car. From these' considerations it 'seems' clear to me that the Roberts patent, properly' eoristrued, involvl:!S:art:inventioh only of the speciftc structure described and shown therein. Thus interpreted, 1 am clear that it is not infringed by l'esppnp.ent.s. They have constructed cars in sub· stantial accordance with the plan shown in the patent No. 335,770, issue4 9; 1886" tel B. Price. The bay window of Robel'ts has agel,leral outline vv4ichmay be diagramatically represented by t",o obliqueto:the side of the car, and in an ob· tuse angle. The bay window constructed,by the would in like ma;nner be represeI;lte<i by two oblique to.. tlie side of the car, and connected at their outer extremities by a lineparaJIel with the si<!e, of the car. This is not the strueture of the Roberts patent, and therefore. because respondents do not infringe that patent, be, dismissed, with costs. ' I
STREAT
v. SIMPSON et ItL
.
(Circult COUl1,S.D. New York. January 6, 1893.) PATENTSlI'(lR INVENTIoNS-INVENTION-DESIGN PATENT FOR TEXTILE FABRICS.
, Letters patent No. 16,379,1&Iued November 10, 1885, to George Streat tor Q.!delilgn torprinting,tex;tllefabrics, consisting of stripes of soUd blocks of to and ''''ith stripes crosEed at right angles by alte:rnating d.llrk and ijght; IlHes blended into each other by shading, "so as to imitate the woven fabric commonly known as 'seersucker,' " are void; it appearing that the patentee merely conceived the idea' of imitating seer· sucker on printed fabrics, whtch wasn'Ot new; that he showed to one Gllmore,the owner of a, fIl.ctory, a photograph of seersucker, and perhaps mdicated to him how t4E! might belmitated by shading off cross lines 'bet\yeeti the stripes, and' that the real method of producing the imitation was' worked out by a designer in Gilmore'!I factory, it not appearing that such designer was controlled by anythtng but the sample and photograph by the patE/ntee. Streat' 'V., White, 35 Fed. Rep. 426, followed.
.by Stroot against William Simpson, Jr., and others, infnngement of letters patent No. 16,379, issued No· vember 10, 1885, to Streat for a design for printing textile fabrics in imitation of soorsncker. Bill dismissed. SamuelR. Betts, for plaintiff. Reuben,L.Roberts, for .d,efendants. WHEELER, District Judge. This case, involves the same patent as Streat v. VV,hite, decided by this court, held by Judge Shipman, in A,pril term., 1$88, (35 Fed. Rep. 426.) There the design sought to be patented described. On the evidence the court then did not tJ\.e. plaintiff invented anything but the imitation of seer· sucker on 'p:r4l.:ted fabrics. More evidence as to the plaintiff's efforts has been produced. That the plaintiff talked with Gilmore, at whose factory the. and engraving were done, about this pattern,
JHE ELEXENA.:
859
gave him a sample, and afterwards sent him a photograpn of seersucker to work by, is not disputed. Probably he showed Gilmore, and perhaps gave to him, a sketch showing his idea of how the seersucker could be imitated by shading off cross lines between the stripes. Whatever he may have done with such a sketch, he had nothing to do about designing or engraving the tools for printing the imitation, but through Gilmore; and that the designer and engraver were con· trolled by anything but the sample and photograph given to them bY' Gilmore is not made to appear. They seem to have produced this imitation of seersucker from this sample and photograph, at the plaintiff's request. through Gilmore, without further direction from the plaintiff. That he got the idea of his pattern from seersucker would not prevent a patent for his pattern; but he could not patent the idea of imitating eeersucker as a design, as was clearly shown by Judge Shipman, nor the shading of cross lines in an imitation of it, nor by a design. patent his method of imitating it. He does not really appear now, more 'than before to have invented anything patentable that would be patented in his patent. Besides this, the defendants' pattern is .n<>t more like the plaintiff's than like the photograph of sea-sucker, which all would have a right to work into any pattern nOI & copy of a patented one. Let a decree be entered dismissing the bilL
THE ELEXENA. THE ALICE J. VENABLlIL
THE SAMUEL T. WHITB. HASTINGS v. THE ELEXEN£ GIBBONS v. THE ALICE J. VENABL1L
SAME v. THE SAMUEL T. WHITE. (DIstrict Conrt, E. D. VirgInIa. November 80, 1892.'
L
CoNSTITUTIONAL LAw-MARITDIlll LmNs-BTATB OYSTER LAws-ColUI804TION OJ' VESSEL BY STATE.
Oode Va. § 2186, providing that a sale of a veBBel forfeited by proceedIngs In the state court for violating the oyster laws of the state "shall vest In the pnrchaser a clell.r and absolute title," is null and Inoperative, In so far as It would divest the maritime liens of innocent parties attaching b&fore the arrest of the vessel; and such vessel may be subsequently seized In tlle hands of the purchaser, and subjected to such liens, by proceedings In the federal admiralty courts. Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 583, dist1Jlr. guished. On such a libel, claims for supplies, materials, and repairs furnished wifhin six months before the seizure of the vessel by the state must be allowed, but materials furnished after such seizure mWlt be disallowed, ali not within the jurisdiction of the court. Claims for wages by seamen who were on the vessel at the time of ber lIeizure, and presumably participating In the violation of law for which IIbe was seized, must be dil!allowell.
I.
SAME-MARITIME LIENs-SUPPLIES AND MATBRIALII.
3.
8Al1E-SEAMEN'1I WAGES.
1J1. Admiralty. Libels tor materials, repairs, and seo.rnan's wape.
