93 FEDERAL REPORTER.
various forms so as to have the so-caIled semicircular slot, but with body-plates having other than straight edges withih.;the slots, and yet· available for all the supposed functions of that edge. As illust.rated in one of the foregoing drawings, the edge might be notched ol"undulating; and the other forms illustrated afford examples any one of which, in respect to the particular functions in question, is the plain equivalent of the form of the patent, and in all reason should be said to infringe, if the patent had real merit. It is to be observed, further, that, while the word "semicircular" is·one of definite mathematical meaning, it manifestly was not used in this patent in the strict sense. The slot shown in the drawings does not approximate a. semicircle, unless refel'ence is made only· to the portion of the slot within that part of the loop which is turned back upon the plate; and, if that be the reference, it does not include the straight edge at the base, which alone has been treated as important. The reference, however, it seems clear, is to the entire slot, and that. instead of b semicircular, has a straight depth between parallel ing lines weIl-nigh equal to twice the radius of the semicircular top with· which it is crowned. The base of the true semicircle, in the drawing of the patent, as weIl as in the other cuts shown, we have indicated by a dotted line, and. there is nothing in the specification and claim which requires thatth:e portion of the slot outside of the semicircular part shaIl be of any particular shape. As illustrated in the patent, it is a paraIlelogram, but it may be in any of the forms illustrated, and in many other conceivable shapes, without impairing the efficiency of the fastener in any respect deemed important. By the opinion in Blum v. Kerngood no one Of those designs could be deemed an infringement, but, if the patent had genuine merit, it ought to cover them all. Our conclusion is that it contains nothing essentiaIly new. The straight edge is fully anticipated in the Delpy clasp, and if it could, in any stage of the art, have been an inventive act to add to that device projecting ears, the anticipation IS found in the Ewig patent of 1887, as well as in other earlier patents. There is certainly no merit in so bending a loop as to leave curved shoulders projecting beyond the body of the plate. It would be difficult to do the bending in a way to leave the necessary space between the plate and the loop, without producing the projecting shoulders. The prior art seems to admit of no theory on which the patent can be deemed valid. The decree below is therefore reversed. Judge SHOWALTER did not participate in this decision.
PELZER v. NEWHALL et aI. (Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois. April 13, 1899.)
PATENTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS-CONFLICTING DECISIONS. '
On a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction, when it o'opears that the circuit courts of in two different. circuits haye 1'1 1 opposite conclusions on the questions involved. the comt 1\ '., adopt the reasoning of- that one which impresses it as bei,ng 1110st cOl'l'ed.
PELZER V. NEWHALL.
SAME-ELECTRIC LIGHT FIXTUltES.
Stieringel' reissne, No. 11,478 (original, No. 259,235). for improvf'ments in electric fixtures, construed, as to claim 1. as being limited to the particular insulating device described, and therefore held not infringed.
This was a suit in equity by William Pelzer against Xewhall and others to enjoin the alleged infringement of reissued letters patent, No. 11,478, granted }larch 12, 1895, to Luther Stieringer, for an improvement in electrical fixtures, which covers a device for attaching electric lighting fixtures to gas pipes by an insulated connection. The original patent, No. 259,235, was granted to said Stieringer June G, 1882. The cause was heard on a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction. Poole & Brown and Richard Dyer, for complainant. Barnes, Barnes & Bartelme, for defendants. KOHLSAAT, District Judge. This matter comes on to be heard upon the motion of defendants for the dissolution of a preliminary injunction heretofore granted herein against defendants, restraining the alleged infringement of reissued letters patent No. 11,478, dated March 12, 1895; the preliminary injunction being on the first claim of the reissued patent. The court has before it the opinions of two circuit courts of appeals covering the question at issue in this suit, in which opinions antagonistic conclusions are reached. The court therefore feels at liberty to closely examine the reasoning of each of the said courts, and the grounds upon which they arrive at their respective conclusions, in addition to the facts brought out on this hearing, as it is admitted that the statements of fact set forth in those opinions are substantially correct, and to adopt the reasoning .of either of said courts, in so far as it may impress this court as being correct, and may be applicable to this case. 'fhe decisions referred to are those of :rtIaitland v. Manufacturing Co., 29 C. C. A. 607, 86 Fed. 124, decided in the Second circuit, and Manufacturing Co. v. Pelzer, !11 Fed. 665, decided in the Third circuit. In view of the wide scope of the first claim of the reissued patent, which, in the mind of tbis court, is so broad as to cover all devices for the insulation of electric light fixtures from grounded pipes to which they may be attached, it is the opinion of the court that to sustain this claim would be practically to sustain a patent upon the principle of insulation itself, when applied to a combination of grounded pipes, and electric light fixtures attaehed thereto. Following the reasoning of the court of appeals of the Third circuit, this court is of the opinion that the first claim of the reissued patent is only valid when restricted to the particular insulating device, as distinguished from the general principle of insulation, shown in said reissue, and in the original patent upon which it is based; and, as the insulating devices used by defendants do not, in the mind of the court, infringe the devices described and set forth in the said reissue, or the original patent on which it is based, the injunction in this case should be dissolved. It is so or· dered.
WHITNEY et al. v. TIBBOL et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 6,.1899.) :No.458. "
A stjp\Ilation reciting that prior to the departureofa vessel on a voyage claimants Ulade advances to her owners, and'that' upon her return the Qargo -\vas tttkenby claimants in payment of the advances, admits that the owners of the vessel owned the cargo up to the time when claimants took no freigh has been paid thenifor, , " it, and F'or their wages, seamen have a lien upon the cargo for the freight, or a reasonable charge therefor, though the vessel and cargo belong to the same person.
2. SEAMEN-LIEN FOR WAGES-LIABILITY OF CARGO FOR FRE·IGHT.
3. SA!\lE-Loss OF LIEN.
A lien in fll-vor of ,on the cargo the freight is not devested by a delivery of t4eproperty to one who made advances to the owners of the vesl;el in fitting her out' and furnishing her with' supplies before she set outdI\ the' voyage.
Appealfrolli'the Oircuit Oourt oftheUnitedStates for the Northern District of Oalifornia. and A. P.,Van for appellants. H. W.:e:J.l.t,ton, for appelle;es. Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circui:(JJ.l.dges, and HAWLEY, District Judge. GILBERT,Oircuit Judge. The appellees were seamen on a voyage upon the barkentine Marion ,from San-Francisco t9 Alaska. On their return to Ban FranciscO' they libeled the bark for their wages, and she. was sOld. Her prGceeds wel'e insufficient to pay the wages, and the appellees libeled and caused to be seized her cargo, consist· ingof 850 barrels of salmon in a warehouse in San Francisco, claimto the extent of the freight. The ing that they had a lien substance of the allegations of the libel was that the owners of the bark were the owners, of the salmon, and that the latter owed freight money to the -vessel, which had not been paid, in the sum of $1,750. The appellants, 0. E. Whitney & 00." answered, denying that the owners of the vessel ever owned the salmon, and denying that any freight money was due, and alleging that all freight had been paid. The distl'ictcourt decreed that the owners of the vessel owned the '"salmon, and that the seamen had a lien upon the latter for the freight, which was fixed at the sum of $850, or at the rate of $1 per barrel. Upon the appeal it is contended that the district court erred in rul· ing-First, that freight was due to the ship from the owners of the salmon; secon.d,.that the owners of the vessel were the o,wners of the cargo; and, third, that the seamen had a lien upon the salmon, and could seize the same in the possession of the appellants after the termination of the voyage. The only proof that freight had been earned, and that the freight money had not been paid, is furnished in a stipulation of the parties