Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-06-21
DRIVE WELLPATENTS.
The U. 8. Circuit SusLains the Green Claim
--And now There is Trouble for Those
Who Have the Drive Wells Without Pay

The U. 8. Circuit Sustains the Green Claim
--And now There is Trouble for Those
Who Have the Drive Wells Without Pay
ing Royalty.
The following important decision was fled yester-
day:
o. s. CIRCUIT URT-MiHnesota District Deem
Der Term, 1877. William D. Andrews, George n.
Andrews and Nelson W. Green vs.. George B.
Wright. John Y. Page and Lamprey & James for
plaintiffs. Davis, O'Brien & Wilson for defendant.
NELSON, J. This suit is brought to recover dam
ages for an infringement of patent issue No. 1879,
and for an injunction. The defences are:
I. Reissue obtained by fraud and not for same In
vention as the original.
II. Want of novelty, prior discovery and use.
III. Alleged invention for result or effect and
not patentable.
". Dedication to the public and abandonment.
The original patent is No.. 49, 25, and while the
charge OF fraud in procuring the reissue is not
pressed it s urged that the TIVE instruments are for
prma face evidence that it Is for the same invention
it must appear in the absence OF fraud that the in
vention described is repugnant to the original mid
The two patents, on examination, show that they
were both granted for "a process of constructing
wells" and the claim and specifications describe the
process which consists in driving tube tightly into
the earth until it reaches water bearing strata with
out removing the earth upwards, and attaching to
this well pit pump, airight, the tube being perfor-
ated at the lower extremity and for short distance
upwards to admit the water freely to the inside
The reissue is not different from the original, and
the claim does not include anything more than the
patentee was entitled to.
To sustain this defense testimony of prior discoy-
cry and use is introduced; but a close examination
and analysis Of the evidence does not satisfy my
mind of the existence of the driven wells before
Green put into practical operation his invention.
There is clear and certain testimony that anyone
had previouly conceived the idea Of such process
and adapted to practc al use, is too shadowy and
doubtful Curtis on patents, Ed. ,849, sec. 4048)
There is description of Green's process in any of
the publications cited and the claim is not strenu-
ously pressed 1t is evident the results noted there
in obtained by boring or excavating and not by
Green's process and it is also used in constructing
the salt wells at Syracuse, New York.
MED. It's practical use throughout this and foreign
countries attest this fact. tits simple and cheap
method of obtaining supply OF water unknown I'M
process and not a result. Though making hole in
the ground by driving rod may be part of the
operation Green performs in obtaining supply Of
his process this hole pit could only be utilized as
WELL when by natural forces water flowed into the
bottom and water bearing strata must necessarily
be reached, when these natural forces will cause a
flow of water in such quantity that the pit becomes
reservoir or produces stream through the tube as
an artesan well.
Green, by driving tube open at the lower end, as
described, into the earth to water bearing strata,
with the earth packed tight about it until the water is
reached, and attaching to it pump, air tight, con-
structs well from which supply OF water is OBJ
tained when the pump is worked, and does not rely
upon the ordinary operation Of natural forces upon
| the water lying in the EARTH
| The evidence shows that not only an abundant
supply Of water is thus obtained, but it is inexhaust
BILE.
In Kneas VS.. Schuylkill Bank, WASH, p.9 the
patent improvement secured and described in the
specifications was for copper plate copper plate
and type printing on bank notes for the purpose OF
producing particular effect. viz: security against
counterfeits, and it was urged that printing with
types and copper plate not new, hut had been long
in common use before the invention described. and
therefore the patent is for effect. The court said
"This is mistake. The patent is not fol
the effect but for the kind of printing by which the
effect is produced, and the patent sustained
process, although the art Of printing with copper
| plates and letter press old. So here hole o.
well pit is made, but the invention is for combina
ton OF that operation with others described neces
sary to construct a driven well-a process. Greer
dispenses with digging and boring and produces 8
new combination of operation.
The facts were reviewed by Judge Benedict in An
drews vs. Carman Is, Blatchford 208, and I concu
in his conclusion that they do not amount to dedi
cation or sustain the defense of abandonment
Decree for complainant ordered, and a reference t
master to ascertain damages. Circuit Judge Dilol
concurs.