New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-04-07
VOLUME VINO. 3OS

larties or differences merely by the nam
of things, but are to look to the machine
or their several devices or elements in tn
light Of what they do. or what Office o
function they perform and how they pc,
form il. and to find that thing is substaI
TALLY the same as another if it perform
substantially the same function in substa1
| TALLY the same way to obtain the same re
suit. Clifford. J.-The L MON Refinery VS.
Mathessen, 2 Fisher, 602.
The rule is, and SO it has been settled
that if two machines be substantially tn
same and operate in the same manner
though they may differ in form, proportion
and utility, they are the same in principle
| Washington, j., in Evans vs.. Eaton,
Wash, 449.
As between device conceded to b.
| new and a device claimed to infringe
because an equivalent the alleged infringeI
could not protect himself by showing tha
although his device was the equivalent o
the patentee's device IN all its functions
and in its construction and mode OF opera
ton, yet By other additional features it per
| formed other and useful functions, such
| device though an Improvement upon thu
| patented one would be an appropriation
Of it. Wooruff, J, in Sarven vs.. Hall, Off
| cial Patent Reports, vol. l. 4N.
| To constitute an Infringement the con
| trivances for the purposes in view must be
! substantially identical and that is substan
tial identity which comprehends the appli
cation of the principle Of the invention.
Page vs. Ferry, Fisher, 229.
1t makes no matter what additions to OF
| notifications of patentees invention de
| fendant may have made, if ne has taken
! what belonged to the patentee he has in
| fringed. although with his improvement the
| original machine or device may be much
more useful. Sprague, j., Howe ys. Morton
| l Fisher, 591
Applying these principles to the case in
| hand there can be no doubt that the de.
| PENDANTS have appropriated the invention
| covered by the patent of A. John Bell.
That they may have improved upon parts
| of the combination may be true. but they
are using the idea first suggested by Bell
| and covered by his patent, namely, the
handling of steamboat stage by means of
rope attached to a derrick, through force
applied By power windlass. The varia-
tions which have been made in the method
of attaching the rope, in the form Of the
derrick. in the position in which the stage
is placed on the deck, are immaterial varia.
tious which do not affect the question of
infringement.
As the patent to Bell bears date
prior to the use of stages by the
Marine Brigade or to the publication in
Applecon's Dictionary of Mechanics, the
defense Of want of novelty can not be
maintained.
The averment that the device of Bell is
not useful can not be sustained. All the
law requires as to utility is that the inven-
ton should not be frivolous or dangerous
1t does not require any degree of utility.
If the invention is useful at ali that sutfices.
Cox vs. Griggs, = Fisher, Ia. Hotfheins vs.
Brandt, 3 Fisher 2lS.
The result of these views is that there
must be decree for complainants direct
perpetual injunction to go against defend
ants, as prayed ia the bill, and reference
to master for an account of profits.
Supreme Court.
Present all the judges.
The following decisions were rendered.
by CHTEF JUSTICE LUDELIHG.
No. 1891. Thomas Brady, appellant, rs.
the parish of Ascension.-From Fourth Ju-
dicial District. Plaintiffs trading boat was
destroyed by mob in 1870, and he sued
the parish for Sl2,678. March, 1871, the
police jury passed resolution to comprom-
ise for S75S5 in bonds, and repealed it in
May, 1872. This is a second suit to enforce
the compromise in dollars. The exception
Of res iudicata is sustained. 10 l.. 32S; IL A.
l97; IA Alb. This court has the right to
pass on an exception. although the court
DelOW ulu uOt, d5 Tue Wu0lt case Is DelUre 1C.
Judgment affirmed.
No. 1929. Mrs. Josephine Decuir vs. John
G. Benson, appellant. From Fifth District
Court of Orleans. Plaintiff, in July, 1872,
was refused a berth on the Governor Allen,
and the right to take her meals at the table
with the other passengers. The court be-
low gave damages of $1,000. The defend
ants exception to the jurisdiction of the
court was properly Overruled. 20 A., 432;
M t.4 u
plaintiffs case, and the defendant said he
refused her berth on account of her color:
that it was contrary to the rules OF the
boat" Act No. 80 of 1869 is not in conflict
with the constitution, as il does not make
any regulation of commerce. The first sec.
ton provides that common carriers may
refuse to receive or may eXpel passen-
gers when they refuse to paw their
fare, are of infamous character, guilty of
bad conduct, etc.. provided that no dis |
be made on account of race or
color. The fourth section gives the right of |
action. The law was enacted solely to protect |
the newly enfranchised citizens of the |
United States in Louisiana from the effects |
Df prejudice against them. 1t does not |
violate article fourteen. No one is deprived |
BY it of life, liberty or property withous |
lue process of law. The position that be- |
,ause ones property can not be taken with |
)uL pEUc6sS VI Id COIuLuOu
,arrier can conduct his business as he |
chooses, without reference to the rights of |
he public, is so illogical that it is only nee |
,ssary to state it to expose its fallacy. A |
common carrier of passengers must re- |
'eive all who offer, carry them over |
he whole route, demand only the |
Usual compensation and treat all alike, and |
or failure is responsible to the extent of
he damage. Chamberlain vs. Chandler. 3
II ,. I ,,-l, L..
Slack VS.. Bannermann, 10 A, l: l Mclean,
30; 3 Mclean, "a; Parsons Mercantile |
4aw, 207; 3 Kent, leo. The right of the
,laintitf to sue would be the same, whether
ct thirty eight existed or not, but the act
) in perfect accord with the constitution of
he United States. COlored people have all
he rights which white people enjoy. Sue
essor of Caballero; Hoss & Elder vs.
Iart ct al. % A. Mrs. Decuir was denied
ras forced to stay in the 'colored bureau"
I she had been white it will not be denied
he would have had just cause of complaint.
n Coger VS.. N. w. Union Packet Co., Chief
ustice Beck, of Iowa, uses the following |
anguage, which we adopt:
These rights and privileges rest upon the
quality OF all before the law, the very
principle of our government.
the negro must submit 70 different treat
lulSriOF W luOso |
iven to the white man-when transported
y public carriers he is deprived of the
enetits Of this very equality. His contract
'ould not secure him the same privileges
nd the same rights that like contract
lade with the same party by his white fell
w w-citizens would bestow upon the latter"
m. Law Reg, March, 1874. A common
arrier may make reasonable rules, but
,gulation that is founded on prejadice, |
i'd, which is contrary to law, is not rea-
,nable. the appellee has not asked for
4 increase of the judgment. 1t is, there
re, ordered the Judgment be affirmed.
Justice Wyly. dissenting. considers that
lie Governor Allen, engaged in commerce