structed in accordance with letters patent granted to John Matthews, Junior, October 3d, 1865, for a "sodawater apparatus." id.

(6.) Robertson's-Sewing-Machire. 52. The first claim of the patent granted to Thomas J. W. Robertson, November 22d, 1859, for an "improvement in sewing-machines," namely: "The employment, in combination with the needle of a sewing-machine, of a plate, K, constructed and operating substantially as herein shown and described, for the purpose of laying and holding braid, gimp, or other material, upon the surface of the fabric, as set forth," is a claim to the employment, in combination with the needle of a sewing-machine, of a separate, detachable plate, constructed and operating substantially as shown and described in the patent, for the purpose of laying and holding braid, gimp, or other material, upon the surface of the fabric, as set forth, as contradistinguished from the employment, in such combination, of a guide not formed in a separate detachable plate. Dibble v. Augur, 86

53. The braiding attachment used in the Florence sewing-machine, being a separate, detachable plate, with a guide for braid, arranged in connection with the presser foot, is not an infringement of such first claim of the Robertson patent.

id.

being made on a copy of such original, because of the loss of such original, and not on the original itself or on such reissue: Held, that such extension was valid. id.

62. The case of Potter v. Holland, (4 Blatchf. C. C. R., 206,) cited and applied. id.

(8.) Hartshorn's-Shade-Fixture, 63. The claim of the reissued patent granted to Stewart Hartshorn, August 27th, 1867, on the surrender of the original patent to him, of October 11th, 1864, for an "improved shade-fixture," namely, "the application to a shade roller, provided with a spiral spring for automatically raising or rolling up the shade, of a pawl and ratchet, or notched hub, so arranged that the former will engage with the latter, at any point or height of the shade, by simply checking the rotation of the roller and the upward movement of the shade under the influence of the spring, substantially as set forth," is infringed by a shade fixture which has such a spiral spring in a roller, and a scroll hub with a notch or rebate fixed to the bracket, and a pin or bolt sliding in a socket on the end of the roller. Hartshorn 120 v. Tripp,

64. The patent sustained, in respect to the novelty of the invention, as against a pre-existing shade-fixture which, only when out of order, operated like the patented fixture, and was not accessible to the public, and passed out of existence, and was unknown to the patentee. id.

(9.) Wilcox's-Spangling-Machine. 65. The first three claims of the patent reissued to Jedediah Wilcox, as assignee, August 4th, 1863, on the surrender of the original patent granted to Bela A. Mann, as inventor, December 24th, 1861, for improvements in machinery for fastening clasps or spangles to the hoops and tapes of hoop-skirts, are valid. Wilcox v. Komp,

126

(10.) Baird's-Spangling-Machine.

(12.) Arkell and Smith's-Paper-Bag.
71. The claim of letters patent granted
to James Arkell and Benjamin Smith,
June 6th, 1865, for an "improvement
in paper-bags," namely: "Softening
the upper parts of paper-bags and
making them pliable, substantially as
and for the purpose above described,"
is a claim to a paper-bag having its
upper end softened and made flexi-
ble, while its lower portion is strong
and stiff with the sizing of the paper.
Arkell v. J. M. Hurd Paper-Bag Co.,

475

(13.) Boardman's-Wire-Staple.
73. The claim of the reissued letters
patent granted to Byron Boardman,
March 6th, 1866, for an "improved
wire staple," on the surrender of the
original patent granted to him, as in-
ventor, March 30th, 1858, which
claims, "as a new manufacture or
commodity," "a wire staple, adapted
for use in making window-blinds or
screens, and constructed substantially
as above described," is valid. Rog-
ers v. Sargent,
507

74. The words, "constructed substan-
tially as above described," in the
claim, do not refer solely to a staple
so constructed, with transverse cor-
rugations, as to penetrate wood easily
and be withdrawn therefrom with
difficulty, but to a staple made into
such shape by the action of dies,
which form the corrugations by
swaging.
id.

75. The invention covered by the claim
does not embrace merely a staple re-
duced in size, so as to be adapted to
window-blinds, spikes with trans-
verse corrugations, and in shape like
such staple, having existed before,
but involves the idea that such staple
shall be made by the swaging blow
of a pair of dies, it appearing that
such staple could not be made by
hand at a price which would admit
of its profitable manufacture, that the
sale of it made by dies by machinery
has been very great, and that it has
altogether superseded the non-ser
rated staples before used for blinds.

id.

76. Such claim covers a staple which

has indentations of equal depths over
the whole surface indented, and is
not made with tapering points, and
also covers a staple that has the
shallowest indentations towards or
nearest the points, and the deepest
indentations farthest from the points.

(14.)

id.

Gorham, Thurber and Dexter's—
Design for handles of Spoons and
Forks.

77. The letters patent granted to John
Gorham, Gorham Thurber and Lewis

1. Where a bill in equity stated that it
was brought by the United States at
the relation of certain persons, and
did not state that the United States 3.
brought it by their District Attorney,
and was subscribed by certain other
persons as solicitors for the plaintiffs,
and the prayer of it was that certain
letters patent of the United States
issued to the defendant might be sur-
rendered to be cancelled: Held, on
demurrer to the bill, that it was bad,
as not stating a case which entitled
the United States to the relief sought.
United States v. Doughty,

424

See EQUITY.

JURISDICTION, 1, 6.
PATENT, 1, 16.

PRACTICE.

Where, in a suit in personam in Ad-
miralty, after answer, a decree was
taken by default for the libellant at
the hearing in the District Court,
and a reference was made to a Com-
missioner to take proof of damages,
and the respondent appeared before
the Commissioner and contested the
amount of damages, and the Commis-
sioner made a report, to which no
exception was taken, and a final de-
cree was entered, from which the
respondent appealed to this Court,
and the libellant then moved this
Court to dismiss the appeal: Held,
that the motion must be denied, and
the case be heard in the usual way,
on the call of the calendar. Farrell
v. Campbell,
158

Where C., adjudged a bankrupt by
a decree of the District Court, was
seeking a review of such decree by
this Court, and was at the same time
prosecuting suits in a State Court to
restrain the proceedings in the Dis-
trict Court: Held, that this Court
would not require C. to elect whether
to prosecute further such review or
the suits in the State Court. In re
Bininger,
168

It is not competent, on an appeal in
Admiralty, to ask this Court to send
the case back to the Commissioner,
on the ground that he rejected evi-
dence offered before him, on the refer-
ence in the District Court as to
damages, where the question as to
the rejection of such evidence was
not raised in the District Court. The
Vicksburg,
216

See ADMIRALTY, 6.
ATTACHMENT.

BANKRUPTCY, 2 to 6, 8.
DUTIES, 1 to 3.
EVIDENCE, 3.
INDICTMENT.
PARTY, 1, 5.
REMOVAL.
TRIAL.