The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921. Page: 345
xx, 1023 p. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this legislative document.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THE RONALD J. BROWN 345
("272 F)
are not an anticipation, but an antithesis. The marking rollers men-
tioned in the evidence were for the real purpose of indenting the finish-
ed surface, and not of finishing it. If they were ever used to run off
surplus water, the use was purely incidental and developed into noth-
ing. None of the patents cited seem to involve the principle of this.
Some uncertainty suggests itself as to how great a length compared to
diameter, and how light a weight, would constitute infringement of
the claims. The vital thing is that the roller is "adapted to float." It
must be light as compared to the concrete mixture The relation of
diameter to length bears only on securing such lightness, combined
with a useful leveling capacity.
I find no basis for the contention that the patentees were not joint
inventors. I see no practical point in seeking to invalihdate the claim
for the method, on the ground that it consists only in tising the device.
If that be true, every act which would infringe one claim would also
infringe the other.
[2] The roller of patent No. 1,302,275, in so far as it may be used
as a "floating roller," is nothing but the former patent. It is, however,
made much heavier, and evidently designed to be supported by the
track rails rather than by the semiliquid concrete. So supported, it is
anticipated by patent No. 910,073, to Lische, if not by the ordinary
roller. As a marking or edging device, it is anticipated by patent No.
1,157,899, to Peterson. To make a groove next the rails for the car
wheels by what is in substance a pair of car wheels is not invention
This patent is held invalid Claims 5 and 6 of patent No. 1,273,022
are held valid and infringed.
THE RONALD J. BROWN.
(District Court, E. D. New York. March 22, 1921 )
1. Salvage @31--Difference between value after raising and cost of raising
held not salved value.
Where the owner of a derrick barge had breached his contract with the
charterer to keep the charge insured, and as a result of attempts to ex-
linguish a fire 11 the cargo of the bhoge she was sunk, the cost of raising
the barge and repairing her, which n0ould have been paid by the insurers
if the owner had perfoilled hls (ontraet, is not to be deducted from the
value of the barge after repairs in determining the value of the salved
vessel.
2. SalIage 4'31-Value of cargo must be considered, though not seized on
libel.
In determining the nnmount of salvage to be allowed tugs for aiding in
extinguishing a fire on a barge, the value of those services to the cargo
of the barge must be considered, though none of the cargo was seized by
the marshal or was subject to the decree of the court.
3. Salvage l-31-Tugs allowed $250 for assistance to barge on fire.
On a libel for salvage services rendered by two tugs to a barge, which
took fire in New York Harbor, and which was subsequently taken in
charge by the fire department, and sank as a result of the water pumped
:*:For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER In all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921., legislative document, 1921; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38843/m1/367/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.