of opposing the tendency of the car bodies to sway, was not contemplated by Bessemer, and his device, which never went into practical use, so far as the evidence shows, is not capable of preventing lateral movements of the cars. His aim was to inclose the space between the ends of the cars in a train with a hood, so constructed that it would adjust itself to the movement of the cars and keep the space inclosed, and thereby prevent the pressure of the atmosphere from impeding the progress of trains. In mode of operation it is unlike the Sessions improvement. The patent granted by the United States in 1852 to Smith was for adjustable flexible hoods so constructed and attached to the ends of cars as "to afford ready and convenient means of passage from one car to the other without danger to passengers." Inste: 1 of using a single frame, or carriage bow, as Bessemer does, Smith uses several, which he unites by cloth, or other thin material. His hoods, which were composed of flexible strong material, are supported and held in position by light ribs or frame pieces. His forward, or front bows, come together to prevent the entrance of cinders and dust, and they are covered with packing. It is plain that the faces of these bows or plates, thus brought into contact, are not intended to counteract or diminish the lateral movement of cars. Frictional resistance to the tendency of cars to sway In speaking of the action of the hoods and their is not contemplated. "They can freely slide against each other and accommodate themselves to the vibrations or rockings of the car, and that in a perfectly independent manner, and need no other fastenings. One end of the hood is permanently secured to the end of a car, while the other end is free to move in all direc tions." It is undoubtedly true that in some of its elements the Smith hood is like the Sessions organization. Smith's patent describes bows or frames. in contact between the superstructures of cars under spring pressure, but they are free to move in all directions, and do not therefore resist the tendency of the car bodies to sway. The English patent granted to Rock Chidley in 1865, like the Smith and other patents of the same class, is for a means of inclosing the space between the ends of cars in a train. A single hood is attached to the end of a car, and its construction is such that it is capable of being extended or expanded so as to reach the end of the adjacent car. The frame-plate is attached rigidly to the car and supported upon heavy iron rods, and the hood is extended by spiral springs which force the frame plates into contact with the adjacent car. "Above the platform," says the specification, "I provide a sliding frame, over which is stretched a hood or covering of water proof material. This frame is kept expanded by springs, but when pressure is applied to it, by the ends of adjoining carriages approaching each other, it will partially collapse, like a carriage hood, and still afford protection from the weather." Chidley's hood, as it is described in the patent, is so constructed and attached to cars that, "when a number are brought together they will form a saloon, the whole length of the train, and thus afford easy communication throughout the whole length of the train and afford the passengers protection from the weather." His organization is provided with springs strong enough to expand the hood and cause its face, or frame, to bear against the end of the adjacent car. The idea of diminishing oscillation in this way never occurred to Chidley, and it is plain that his device is useless for that purpose. He had in mind and described a flexible hood, composed of cloth, leather, or rubber, supported by a frame capable of collapsing in order that the device should yield freely to the movement of trains. It is urged that this patent shows a spring strong enough to keep the frame-plate in contact with the end of the adjacent car, and if these springs are not as strong as the Sessions springs, the difference is one of degree only. It is not material, in the operation of this device, that the face-plate be kept in frictional contact with the car end; and, if it is shown in contact, it is by no means clear that oscillation can be thereby diminished. The patent does not show two frame-plates in frictional contact under opposing spring pressure, and the difference between the Chidley and the Sessions device is not in degree, but in kind. Previous to 1873, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company attached to the ends of its cars, or some of them, canopy covers to prevent cinders from the locomotives falling upon the car platforms. None of these attachments have been used since the lastnamed date, when they appear to have been discarded as useless. The defendants insist that these hoods operated as spring buffers, and fully anticipated the Sessions patent. Four inch iron rods, inclosed by springs, were attached rigidly at the tops of the car bodies. Two of the rods supported half of the canopy frame, or board, which was one inch or more thick, faced with sheet or thin iron, and hinged in the middle. The frame-work was forced out by the springs, and when the cars were coupled the springs were compressed and the faces of the boards, or ends of the hood-frames, were brought into contact. This rude device was not capable of diminishing oscillation. It is also insisted that the Sessions patent is void for want of a definite or accurate specification; that it claims three different forms of buffers, and shows but one in the drawings, and that the strength of the top springs is nowhere stated. Treating the drawings as part of the specifications, the first claim covers two forms of buffers, the frame-plates used by both the plaintiff and the defendants, and their equivalent series of buffers, and the second claim covers buffers under similar pressure, located at the top or ends of the cars. A skilled mechanic, with the drawings and specifications before him, would have no trouble in understanding how to make the buffers covered by the two claims, and Sessions was not obliged to limit himself to top springs of any particular strength. He described springs powerful enough to accomplish a result, namely, springs of sufficient strength to diminish the force of shocks, and furnish frictional resistance to counteract in whole or in part the forces which produce vibration or oscillation of the car-bodies. It is further insisted by the defendants that they do not infringe, because they use an elliptic spring to force out the upper ends of the bufferplates, instead of the coiled springs described in the Sessions patent. Sessions did not limit his invention to the use of coiled springs, and the use of the elliptic spring was contemplated by the patent. In all other respects, the defendants' device corresponds exactly with the patented device, and the substitution of an elliptic spring for a coiled one was purely a mechanical change. Again, the defendants' counsel insist that friction does not depend at all upon the extent of surface, but solely upon the force with which the surfaces are compressed, and that, therefore, the frictional resistance of the Sessions frame-plates in contact is precisely what it would be if the surfaces were larger or smaller under the same degree of pressure. While that may be true, and doubtless is, when the surfaces in contact are perfectly smooth, it is equally true that in proportion as the surfaces are roughened, the frictional resistance increases. It may be admitted that, if the buffer spring-plates were not forced together at the top as shown in the patent, the platform springs would exert little, if any, influence at the upper end of the frame-plates. With the buffer-plates rigidly attached to the top ends of the cars, and held in a substantially vertical line, without capacity to move sidewise independently of the car bodies, the pressure of the platform springs against the foot of the plates must necessarily be transmitted, to a greater or less degree, along the plates to their very top. If it were not so, the Sessions device would, indeed, be a worthless incumbrance, and the defendants would have abandoned it as promptly as they adopted it without right. In this respect the Sessions organization differs from all prior buffing devices. The record fails to show elevated spring buffers, or frame-plates, co-operating with platform buffer-springs, prior to the Sessions invention, It required more than mere mechanical skill to see that the pressure of the platform buffer-springs could be made effective in vertical lines between the superstructures of the cars, as well as in the longitudinal lines of the platforms. Sessions discovered a means whereby our long, high, American cars might be made to run as steadily as the low, short, English cars, and the fact that for years his now simple device occurred to none of our many car builders is a circumstance strongly. favoring the claim that his invention possesses novelty. If his device, or anything operating like it, and capable of producing the same useful results, was known in the prior art, it is remarkable that its practical utility was not sooner recognized and understood. All prior buffing structures lacked what was necessary to give them the effective force that the Sessions elevated spring buffer-plates are capable of exerting. We have already seen that the value of the Sessions improvement as a means of diminishing the force of shocks and counteracting the tendency of cars to sway when in motion was promptly recognized by the principal railroads of the country, and, while utility is not conclusive proof of invention, it is strongly suggestive of it. Owing to the differences already alluded to between American and English cars, there was greater necessity for additional means of steadying cars of the former class than of the latter, and yet no one suggested the elevated spring buffer-plates. The defendants are at liberty to use the vestibule structure without the Sessions invention, as well as all the various prior buffing devices, whether described in patents or not, and yet they persist in asserting their right to use the Sessions buffer-plates while denouncing them as worthless. If they are sincere in thus characterizing this improvement, why do they squander money in attaching it to their cars? Practical railroad men do not adopt and use devices that are of no value. The frame-plates used by the defendants are covered by both claims of the patent, and an injunction will issue, as prayed for in the bill, and the case will go to a master, to take testimony and report the profits and damages. UNITED STATES AXLE LUBRICATOR Co. v. WURSTER. (Circuit Court, E. D. New York. April 5, 1889.) PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT AXLE LUBRICATORS. The claim of letters patent No. 242,141, May 31, 1881, to Laskey & Arnold, for an axle lubricator, is, in combination with the axle and box, the oil chamber communicating with the interior of the box, and provided with a supply orifice, an inwardly opening self-acting valve, and a male screw-thread upon the exterior of its outer portion, a force-pump or injector provided with a discharge nozzle, adapted to enter the supply orifice and push back the valve, and a coupling sleeve provided with an internal thread to engage with the thread in the oil chamber, all arranged, etc. All the claims in the original application were rejected, and the patent was granted only when the description and claim were modified by stating that the coupling sleeve was provided with the internal thread, etc. Various methods of lubricating axles had been previously devised, and that described in letters patent No 120,515, October 31, 1871, to Harvey, consisted of a syringe with a piston, reservoir, and a communicating nozzle, adapted for insertion into a conical orifice in the hub or journal. Held, that a device having a conical nozzle fitting into a conical orifice, instead of the screwed sleeve, was not an infringement. In Equity. Suit by the United States Axle Lubricator Co. against F. W. Wurster, to restrain the infringement of a patent. JC. Clayton, for complainant, cited: Johnson v. Root, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 351; Conover v. Rapp, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 57; Singer v. Walmsley, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 558; Burden v. Corning, 2 Fish. Pat Cas. 477; Brighton v. Wilson, 18 Fed. Rep. 378; Child v. Iron Works, 19 Fed. Rep. 258. Philipp, Phelps & Hovey, for defendant, cited: McCormick v. Talcott, 20 How. 405; Bragg v. Fitch, 121 U. S. 478-483, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 978; Railway Co v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554; Duff v. Pump Co., 107 U. S. 636, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 487; Blake v. San Francisco, 113 U. S. 679, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 692; Wicke v. Ostrum, 103 U. S. 461; Fay v. Cordesman, 109 U. S. 408, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep 236; Zane v. Soffe, 110 U. S. 204, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 562; Stephenson v. Railroad Co., 114 U. S. 149, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 777; Grier v. Wilt, 120 U. S. 412, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 718; Bussey v. Manufacturing Co., 110 U. S. 131, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 38; Machine Co. v. Murphy, 97 U. S. 125; Signal Co. v. Signal Co., 114 U. S. 87, 5 Sup Ct. Rep 1069; Rowell v. Lindsay, 113 U. S. 97, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 507; Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. 573; Werner v. King, 96 U. S. 230; Brown v. Davis, 116 U. S. 237, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 379; Prouty v. Ruggles, 16 Pet. 341; Clements v. Apparatus Co., 109 U. S. 641, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 525; Shepard v. Carrigan, 116 U. S. 593, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; Sutter v. Robinson, 119 U. S. 530, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376: Sargent v. Lock Co., 114 U. S. 63, 5 Sup Ct. Rep. 1021; Leggett v. Avery, 101 U. S. 256; Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 102 U. S. 222; Snow v. Railway Co., 121 U. S. 617, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1343; Weir v. Morden, 125 U. S. 98, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 869; Hendy v. Iron Works, 127 U. S. 370, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1275; Hartshorn v. Barrel Co., 119 U. S. 664, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421; Water-Meter Co. v. Desper, 101 U. S. 332. LACOMBE, J This is a suit to restrain the infringement of a patent for axle lubricators, issued May 31, 1881, to Laskey and Arnold, (No. 242,141,) and assigned to the complainant. The single claim of the patent is: "In combination with the axle, A, and box, B, the oil-chamber, D, communicating with the interior of said box, and provided with a supply orifice, an inwardly opening self-acting valve, d, and a male screw-thread upon the exterior of its outer portion, a force-pump or injector provided with a discharge nozzle adapted to enter said supply orifice and push back the valve, d, and a coupling sleeve, H, provided with an internal thread to engage with the thread on the oil-chamber, all arranged and adapted to operate substantially as and for the purposes described." Prior to the granting of this patent, Charles A. Wakefield (No. 115,914, June 13, 1871) had suggested the application of oil or grease to the friction surface between the hub and the axle by means of a perforation in the axle and nut, whereby the lubricant might be supplied without taking off the wheel or nut. John T. Wilson also (March 9, 1869, No. 87,609) had devised an oil chamber or reservoir constructed in the axle, with an accessible opening through which it might be supplied with a lubricating material, and connecting with an opening or perforation through the axle. Aaron Richardson (July 29, 1851, No. 8,251) had also devised an inwardly opening self-acting stopple (consisting of a plug-valve and spiral spring) for use in connection with oil-cups. W. H. Harvey (October 31, 1871, No. 120,515) had also devised, as a lubricator for axles, a syringe with piston, reservoir, and a communicating nozzle adapted for insertion into a conical orifice in the hub or journal, through which the oil or grease might pass to the friction surface. Elias W. Moyer (January 28, 1878, No. 201,193) had also combined perforated axles, plugged supply orifices and reservoirs with packing of wick. In this state of the art the complainant's assignors presented their particular combination of improvements in axle lubricators, and asked for a patent. They described their invention as one relating to improvement in oiling carriage axles without removing the wheel, or even holding the nut from the axle, such improvement consisting "In attaching to the nut, box, axle, or hub an oil-chamber communicating by suitable passages or conduits with the space between the axle and the box, and provided with a supply orifice closed by a self-acting valve opening inward, and adapted to be retracted by exterior pressure thereon, and permit the insertion in said orifice of the nozzle of a force-pump or injector, as will be further described. It further consists in the use, in combination with a carriage axle and its box, of an oil-chamber communicating by a suitable passage or conduit with the interior of said box, and provided with a supply |