ARCHER V. ARND.
475
and, if a county obtains the money or property of others without authority oflaw, the law, independent of any statute, will compel restitution or compensation." :My conclusion (in common with that of several other courts in which a similar question has arisen) is that counties in this state are subject to actions of this character. The demurrers in the three cases will be overruled.
ARCHER ". ARND
and othera.
«(}jreuit Oourt, E. D. Missouri, E. D. June 20, 1887.' 1. PATENTS FOR INvENTIONS-ScOPE OIl' PATENT-COMBINATION OIl' OLD DBVICES·-MECHAl'lICAL EQUIVALENTS.
2.
Patent No. 102,688, reissued as No. 7,320, relating to barbers' and dental chairs, containing seven elements, all of them old, in combination, held, that the doctrine of mechanical equivalents must be restricted within reasonable liniits, and that defendants, who were manufacturing under no patent, and who used two elements which were not equivalent to the devices of the plaintiff, did not infringe his patent. The reissued patent No. 7,320 is void, as having been issued more than six years after the original issue, and as intended to cover separatll elements of the combination, and thereby broaden the terms of the original grant. In such a case an application for dismissal without prejudice, as to one of the defendant manufacturers. was denied.
SAME-REISSUE-VALIDITY.
3.
SAME-DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDIOE.
In Equity. The patent litigated in this case was issued May 3, 1870, to Michael Leidecker, of Rochester, New York, under No. 102,688, and reissued to Leidecker, September 26, 1876, under No.7 ,320. The patent related to barbers' and dental chairs. The second claim of the patent sued on, the only one held to be infringed, reads: "(2) The toothedblock, C, arm, D, spring or springs, K, toggle-arms, E, G, shaft, H, and pedal, I, combined with the parts, A, B, of the chair, in the manner described, and for the purpose specified." Defendants claimed that in the chairs they were manufacturing they had no block, C, no toggle-arms, E, G, and. no shaft, H. They admitted their use of the other elements of the combination, but claimed a different use of the arm, D. Their claims as to the shaft·, H, and the toggle-bars, E, G, were as follows: "They have not the rock-shaft, Imd the only possible thing that could be construed to be the equivalent of the rock-shaft is the pivot-pin of the segment; but this does not rock, nor does it extend to one side of the chair, affording a means for locating the pedal at the right-hand side of the chair, as the patentee specifically sets forth as being 4)ne of the leading distinctive features of his invention. The defendants' pedal is located directly in the middle of the chair, and does not have the alleged advantage as to locating it at the right-hand side of the chair, as specified in the patent. The simple
476
REPORTETI.
pivot-pin cannot, therefore, be held as an equivalent of the shaft, II, of the complainant's patent, as it does not operate in the same way, nor does it produce the same, or substantiaJIy the same, result. Neither can the wires connecting the spring-bolt to the triangle or segment, and connecting the latter to the pedal, be held as the equivalent of the toggle-bars described in the patent. because they necessitate the use of the triangle or segment." The reissue sued on covered the claim of the principle "of a jointed or pivoted lever connection, extending across the bottom of the chair," etc., while it appeared that the original patent was for a combination of ele-' ments, all admitted to be old. Smith & Bnrgett and S. N. Holliday. for complainant. Edward J. O'Brien and George H. for respondents. THAYER, J. The bill in this case is dismissed. For the information of counsel, the court states the grounds of its decision briefly, as follows: 1. Complainant's patent is on a combination for inclining dentist and barber chairs. There are many kindred devices in use for the same purpose. The seven elements composing the'complainant's combination are all old. In such cases the doctrine of mechanical equivalents should be given a restricted operation, so as to confine the patentee, within rea.sonable limits, to the particular combination covered by his patent, and not to interfere with the rights of others. Acting on this principle the ,_ court finds that the bell-crank, and axis of the same, used by the defendant in·the construction of barber chairs, is not the equivalent of the "rock-shaft" described in complainant's specifications; that the springbolt employed by the defendant is not the equivalent of the "toggle-arms" shown in complainant's patent. The result of the finding is that defendant has not infringed complainant's patent. 2. The court is furthermore of the opinion that the reissued patent upon which complainant sues is void because it was issued more than six years after the grant of the original patent, and was evidently intended to broaden the original invention, and in point of fact has that effect. The originalletters patent contain but one claim embracing seven elements in combination. In the reissued patent that claim is substantially reproduced as claim No.2, and two additional claims have been added. The additional claims found in the reissued letters seem to have been intended to cover separate elements of the combination, thereby broadening the terms of the original grant after the lapse of more than six years, and bring the case within the purview of the following cases, to-wit: Miller v. Brass Co., 104 U. S. 350; Mathews v. Machine Co., 105 U. S. 54; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354.5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174. 3. I also deny the application to dismiss the bill without prejudice, as against the defendant Henry Arnd. '
'filE LIZZIE FRANlt.
4.77
THE LIZZIE FRANK. HURLEY 11.
THE LIZZIE FRANK and Owner.
(District Oourt, 8. D. Alabama. July 5, 1887.) 1. Where a vessel is constructed and equipped in the mode usual and customary with other vessels of like character. and in a mode approved by competent,jud.ges and previous experience, then, in case of an accident happenmg by reason of a latent defect in the equipment and construction, there is no negligence on the part of the owner. SAl\{E-DUTY OF OWNERS TOWARDS SEAMEN. DEFECT IN CONSTRUCTION-NEGLIGENCE.
While the ship-owner is bound to provide a seaworthy ship. he is not an insurer or warrantor of the seamen against latent and undiscoverable defects in the vessel.
8.
SEAMAN-INJURY IN SERVICE-RIGHTS OF.
A seaman who is injured in the service of the ship, without the fault either of himself or the ship, can recover no compensation by way of damages from the ship. but is entitled to be healed at the expense of the ship, even after the voyage has terminated. and the seaman is discharged. Where a libel is filed by a seaman for damages, and also praying other relief, the admiralty is competent to administer a suitable remedy; and. although the court finds no damages due, it may make a decree for such expenses in healing the libelant as have been already incurred. But it cannot decree for prospective expenses.
4.
SAl\{E-RBMEDY-ADMIRALTY PRACTICE.
In Admiralty. Libel for personal injury to seaman on tow-boat in Mississippi Sound. . Hannis TayllYl' , for libelant. R. H. Clarke, for claimant, TOULMIN, J. The libel in this case is filed by a seaman to recover damages for personal injury while in the performance of his duty on board, of the tug-boat Lizzie Frank. The libel avers that the cause of the accident from which the injury resulted was the imperfect, insecure, and negligent manner in which a certain appliance or part of said boat, used in towing and designated as the "chock," was fastened; that such insecure fastening was a defect in the structure and equipment of said tug; and that it broke from its insecure fastening, and struck the libelant, doing him serious bodily injury. It is averred that the injury complained of was through negligence or fault, etc. The claimant says, in answer to the libel, that the tug was equipped with all the apparatus and appliances that men of ordinary skill and prudence, engaged in the same business, provide their tug.boats with; that respondent used due diligence that the SlJ,me should be of sufficient strength and durability to stand the strain necessarily put upon them in the performance of such work as the vessel undertook to do; and that the strain put upon the chock in the particular instance was not more than it could have been reasonably expected safely to bear. Respondent denies that the chock was fastened in an insecure, imperfect, or negligent manner; and says