Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-02-05
,,,powTANT DECISION AFFECTING
QUESTION OF INFRINGEMENT.
SOUTH CAROLINA RAILWAY BONDS.
orinion Affecting Them Handed
mum in the Circuit Court of An
pcaIs-An Unique Lcg"i Document
ON ENhihition.


etc., ir this court.
Tho North Carolina land case. which
oo,,,n..l the court on Wednesday was
,be only one argued. \ very unique and
interesting legal document Is on exhibit
t.on n the courtroom I'm connection with
This ease. The indenturc was made Au-
ANS, .t 1886. between Robert Tate. OF
Work county. In the Commonwealth of
pennsylvania. yooman. and Agnes. his
wife. and William Tate of Burke county.
Ia the state Of North Carolina. merchant.
~ tre one part, and the Hon. Robert
Morris OF the city Of Philadelphia. The
s.l IS beautifully written on parch-
mont 10 measures Is feet in length.
ami el-2 feet in width. 1t deals with
100 separate tracts Of land, the largest
Of which is 70.4o0 acres, and the smallest,
g. acres.
The next case i'm call for argument IS
I'D w5-the Phoenix Insurance Com
many OF Brooklyn. appellant. vs.. j. Il.
schultz. appellee Appeal from the Cir
,.t Court OF the United States for the
western District Of Virginia.
NORTH CAROLINA CASE DECIDED.
rendered hy Judge Simonton I'm the case
OF the Carter Machine Company vs.. Plea
SAINT H. Hanes and John w. Hanes
trading under the firm-name and style
Of II. n. Hanes & CO.. which was argued
I'm this court November 10, 1876. The
case came up by appeal from decree OF
The Circuit Court for the Western Dis
frict OF North Carolina. The complain
ant below filed a bin in equity against
she defendant, alleging an infringement
OF IT'S uatent. The Circuit Court dis
missed the bill, and the complainant APP
peaied 10 this court.
The appellant holds, by assignment,
Patent No. 1880 granted to James NJ.
King April 4. 1898. and assigned to APP
pcliant. April 10. 1898. The patent is for
a tobaccO-havoring machine. The first
claim and the only one in suit. is 1.-THE
combination I'm a tobaccO-favoring ma
chine of a rotary faring drum pro-
vided with driving mechanism. feed
hopper emptying into the smaller end
Of the drum, and a spraying device To-
Gated within the drum. whereby the to-
hacco is sprayed and leaves separated
as they pass through the drum, sub
stantially as described"
HISTORY OF SUCH DEVICES.
Mechanical devices for applying a
favoring-lica,i 10 tobacco were well
known before the date of this patent.
The patent Of Smith & Messenger, No.
1856. January -. 1876 shows q flavor
ing machine consisting Of an inclined
cylindrical rotating drum. through
which tobacco passes. and in its pas
sage is sprayed by a spraying device
located outside OF the drum. at the
lower end. Smith & Messenger improved
on Thy " Patent No 1S7lS. These have
expired. c. T.. Bjick. also, had a patent,
80. 1858. October @ 1871. for spraying
t0bacco-leaves. His device has an in
clned cylindrical drum. through which
the leaves Of tobacco pass and in their
passage are sprayed from spraying
nozzle al the upper end Of the drum.
So King was not a pioneer i'm seeking and
obtaining this result. by means of re-
volving cylinder and a spraying device.
IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT
His claim is for the combination in
iodacco-llavoring machine Of three
rarts-a hopper a iaring-drum, and
spraying device. within the drum. His
claim. then. is for an entirety. He cam
not abandon a part and claim the rest.
lIe must stand by his claim as he has
made it. If more or less. than the
whole of his ingredients are used by an
other. such party is not an infringer
because ne has not used the invention or
combination claimed by the patentee are
not new. The hopper has long been well
known. and numerous patents are cited
in the answer showing its frequent use
before the date Of this patent So, also,
the haring-drum was not unknown 10
the art before the date of this patent,
and il is frequently spoken Of as the
equivalent Of an inclined cylinder.
Also. spraying device for spraying
.HaN T.Nnnfrn TnHff a.. N..r
was used generally.
The court ahirms the decree Of the Cir
cult Court-that the appellees do not in
fringe the patent Of the appellants.
south Carolina Railroad Case.
Another interesting opinion handed /
down during the present term, in which |
The decision Of the Circuit Court of the |
United States for the District Of South !
Carolina Is affirmed, is in the case Of |
Frederick w Bound and others vs.. /
the South Carolina Railroad Company /
90 al. and in the case Of William IL. /
RosborOugh, petitioner, appellant Vs.
Henry w smith, Gustave e. kissel
and Peter Geddes, purchasers of the /
south Carolina railroad. and commit
lee Of certain of the first consolidated |
mortgage bOndholders appellees.
The petition Of the appellant, Rosbo- |
rough. was filed September 4, 1855, in
the case Of Bound VS.. the South Caro- |
Ina Railroad Company. alleging that he /
was the owner Of a $1,000 bond of the |
railroad company with nine unpaid |
semi-annual interest coupons secured |
by the first consolidated mortgage of |
1851: that by a decree Of the Circuit |
Court the said mortgage had been fore
closed bv a sale Of the railroad April |
y 1894. that at said sale Henry W. Smith, |
Gustave T. Kissel and Peter Geddes /
became the purchasers, at the price of |
8 10000 being the minimum price /
limited by the decree That there had |
been an arrangement between the hold |
ers OF a large majority Of the said first |
consolidated mortgage bonds with refe-
renee TO the bidding at the sale and |
buying in the railroad, and that Smith
Klssel. and Geddes were a committee to
carry into effect said agreement, but |
that the petitioner had never heard Of
tho agreement until within Few days
before filing his petition. That the said |
agreement had the effect OF chilling the
b1ling at the sale, 50 that the pur-
Chasers obtained for their bid Of 100000 |
property worth SS.00J0O).
That the petitioner, II obliged 20 take
his pro rata Of the fund produced by /
sad sale. would only receive about 10
Der cent Of the amount of his said bond
and coupons. The petitioner further al
legged that his said bond had been ie-
ce.ved by him I'm exchange. for bonds
which he held secured by a mortgage
prior 20 the first consolidated mortgage,
known as the mortgage Of 1868.
The petitioner asserts that. as against
the purchasers OF said railroad, being a
large majority OF the holders Of the first
consolidated mortgage bonds. represent
60 by their said committee, he Is now
Snuued 10 surrender his first consoli-
odied mortgage bond and fall back upon
me Hen which he had 10 secure his
original bonds under the mortgage OF