be recorded as parts of the instruments, just as the registrar was obliged to record them prior to the enactment of Act No. 23. Jefferies v. East Omaha Land Co., 134 U. S. 178, 10 Sup. Ct. 518, 33 L. Ed. 872; Morgan et al. v. Moore, 69 Mass. 319; Hutchcraft v. Lutwig et al., 13 Wash. 240, 43 Pac. 29; Davis v. Rainsford, 17 Mass. 207; Warville on Abstracts, p. 161; Lunt v. Holland, 14 Mass. 149

We perceive no repugnancy between the general laws of the territory, relating to conveyances, and Act No. 23, affecting the questions involved in this case. Giving all possible weight to the argument of the defendant in error, it carries us no farther than to a point where we may admit that the case presents difficulty in finding out just what the Legislature meant by Act No. 23, when considered with other statutes bearing upon titles and transfer of property. An aid in the solution of such a difficulty, however, lies, not only in the analysis of the statutes just hereinbefore made, but by resort to the title to Act No. 23, which reads:

"An act providing for the filing of plans and surveys of lands in the office of the registrar of conveyances."

In United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 358, 2 L. Ed. 304, Chief Justice Marshall said:

"Neither party contends that the title to an act can control plain words in the body of the statute; and neither denies that, taken with other parts, it may assist in removing ambiguities. Where the intent is plain, nothing is left to construction. Where the mind labors to discover the design of the Legislature, it seizes everything from which aid can be derived; and in such case the title claims a degree of notice, and will have its due share of consideration."

It is significant that nowhere in the title is there a word which discloses that the purpose of Act No. 23 was to amend or repeal the statutes requiring record of condemnation judgments, or record of conveyances of property, where maps are themselves attached to the deed as included parts of the descriptions of the realty. We cannot extend the statute by construction or imply a repeal.

Defendant in error is a public officer; and, as his duty to record is ministerial, he is obliged to perform it. The procedure by application for writ of mandamus may be treated as one made necessary in order to carry out the objects of the main case in eminent domain, and to give complete relief. In this sense it is ancillary, and jurisdiction obtains. Roberts, Treasurer, v. United States, 176 U. S. 221, 20 Sup. Ct. 376, 44 L. Ed. 443.

This disposes of the material questions raised by the pleadings. The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with directions to issue the writ as prayed for.

(161 Fed. 343.)

CONSOLIDATED RY. ELECTRIC LIGHTING & EQUIPMENT CO. v. ADAMS & WESTLAKE CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. January 7, 1908. Rehearing De nied May 6, 1908.)

Nos. 1,388, 1,394.

1. PATENTS-PRIORITY OF INVENTION-Burden oF PROOF ON ISSUE.

The grant of a patent raises a presumption that the patentee was the original inventor of the thing patented, and that the invention was made at the time the application was filed, and one claiming priority of invention has the burden of proving, by evidence which is clear and certain, that the invention was conceived and reduced to practice by another prior to the date of the application. When such proof is made, however, the burden is shifted to the claimant under the patent to establish, if not with equal certainty, at least to the satisfaction of the court, a still earlier date of invention by the patentee.

[Ed. Note. For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 38, Patents, § 121. Priority and continuance of public use of invention as affecting patentability. See notes to Eastman v. Mayor, etc., of City of New York, 69 C. C. A. 646.]

2. SAME-MECHANISM FOR ELECTRIC LIGHTING of Cars.

The Kennedy patent, No. 740,982, for mechanism for driving dynamos on railway trucks for the purpose of the electric lighting of cars, held void on evidence clearly showing that the invention was conceived and reduced to practice by another some months before the patentee's application was filed; there being no satisfactory proof of conception of the invention by the patentee at an earlier date.

Appeal and Cross-Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois. For opinion of court below, see 153 Fed. 193.

The appellant, Consolidated Railway Electric Lighting & Equipment Company, was the complainant below in a bill filed against the Adams & Westlake Company, as defendant, for alleged infringement of three claims of patent No. 740,982, issued to the complainant, as assignee of Patrick Kennedy. The decree of the Circuit Court adjudged infringement of the claims by the dafendant, in a single instance, for which injunction was granted, but that the third claim was not infringed thereby; and further adjudged that other alleged infringing devices were not infringements of either claim in suit, under the limited scope awarded, and that an accounting be denied. Assigning error for the limitations, thus placed upon the several claims, and denials of relief thereupon, the complainant brings this appeal, and the defendant prosecutes its cross-appeal from the adjudication of validity or infringement of the claims in any particular.

Patent No. 740,982 (in suit) is entitled "Mechanism for Driving Dynamos on Railway Trucks," and was granted October 6, 1903, on application filed June 5, 1903, by Patrick Kennedy as inventor. It purports to be an improvement in the system of electrical lighting for railway cars, with the dynamo driven by the revolution of the car-wheels, but relates specifically "to means for mounting the dynamo upon the truck of a railway car." The description contained in the brief, submitted on behalf of the complainant appellant, is adopted, for the present statement, as follows:

"The patent recites the prior state of the art, in which dynamos had been located either inside the cross-beam of the railway truck, or, as an alternative, suspended from the car-body, and states that these expedients had faults which greatly impaired their utility. The suspension of the dynamo inside the truck brought the driving-pulley closely adjacent to the pulley on the armature of the dynamo, thus necessitating a short belt, which is liable to be

deranged, and gives an imperfect transmission of power. It is stated, also, that such arrangement of the parts rendered them difficult of access for removal or repair, and the suspension of the heavy dynamo directly from the bolts gave inadequate support under the severe usage to which railway trucks are subjected. The suspension of the dynamo from the car-body was objectionable, because, when the car is turning curves, the angle of the belt to the armature is changed, and the belt is liable to be thrown from the pulley. The object of the invention is stated as follows:

""The object of my invention is to obviate these practical difficulties in the transmission of power from car-axles to dynamos. To this end, I provide certain new and useful combinations of instrumentalities, hereinafter fully set forth, whereby I am enabled to place the dynamo outside of the crossbeams of the truck, and thereby secure the transmission of power thereto through a driving-belt of increased length, whereby the apparatus is made readily accessible for examination, lubrication, etc., whereby it may be readily removed from the truck when required, and whereby it is provided and held in place upon the truck with great stability and security, these advantages resulting in a much greater degree of safety, durability and economy in working than has heretofore been attained in the class of mechanisms to which my invention relates.'

"The specification then proceeds, with a description of the mechanical structure of the device, which, in substance, is as follows:

"Instead of suspending the dynamo between the axles of the wheels, the inventor suspends it outside of the end-beam of the truck, and this he accomplishes by providing a horizontal bracket frame of U-shape, the two parallel legs, a, a, being bolted to the longitudinal beams of the truck, extending outwardly beyond the cross-beam B, and connected at the ends by an integral cross-arm, b. The bracket-frame is braced by diagonal pieces H, which are bolted to it and to the end-beam, B, thus affording a strong and rigid frame within which a cradle for holding the dynamo is supported. The cradle is composed of two U-shape pieces, E, having horizontal lugs, which rest, respectively, upon the cross-beam, B, of the truck and the cross-arm, b, of the bracket, so that the cradle is suspended from the bracket, and is not dependent for its support upon the bolts by which it is secured. The cradle may be removed readily by loosening the bolts and withdrawing it from the bracket. The dynamo is pivoted to adjustable blocks, F, which are held at the base of the cradle by bolts I passing through slots, so that the blocks may be shifted endwise, and may thus provide for the alinement of the dynamo in parallelism with the car-axle. Set-screws, 1, are provided as a convenient means for effecting this adjustment. The dynamo, G, is pivoted to the blocks at n, and tension is imparted to it by an adjustable spring, P, drawing the dynamo outwardly in opposition to the tension of the driving-belt, M, which extends from a pulley, K, on the shaft of the dynamo to a pulley, L, on the car-axle, C. The spring thus keeps the driving-belt taut, and by its action in conjunction with the adjustment afforded by the pivot-blocks, F. the dynamo is maintained in an upright position, and constantly in proper relation and alinement with the axle, so that the best conditions for driving are at all times maintained.

"The specification concludes with the following statement of advantages: "It will be seen that, by the novel combinations of parts herein described, the dynamo may be located at any desired distance from the driving-axle of the truck, thereby insuring the advantages of a longer driving-belt, this permitting the use of larger pulleys whether on the axle or on the armatureshaft; also that the dynamo and its adjuncts may be readily reached and inspected; also that the dynamo and its adjuncts may be easily removed and replaced as occasion demands; also that, aside from the driving-pulley on the axle, the apparatus may be readily detached from the truck by removing the bolts which attach the bracket-frame to the beams, and that when in use the tension of the driving-belt in its hold upon the armature-pulley is made constant, and held at any desired strain by adjusting the compression of the spring which actuates the dynamo.'

"The first three claims are in issue, and are as follows:

"1. The combination with a car-truck and a bracket device, extending outside of the beams of said truck, of a removable cradle placed between said bracket and an outside cross-beam of the truck, a dynamo within the cradle and adjustably pivoted thereto, a pulley on the armature-shaft of the dynamo, a driving-pulley on an axle of the truck, a driving-belt extended from the driving-pulley to the pulley on the armature-shaft and means for elastically swinging the dynamo to maintain the tension of the belt as described.

""2. The combination with a car-truck and a bracket extended outside of the beams of said truck, of a removable cradle placed between said bracket and an outside cross-beam of the truck, a dynamo within the cradle, adjustably pivoted at the bottom thereof, a pulley fast on the armature of the dynamo, a driving-pulley on the axle of the truck, a driving-belt extended from the driving-pulley to the pulley on the armature-shaft, and a compression-spring, provided to swing the dynamo to maintain the tension of the driving-belt as described.

3. The combination with a car-truck of a bracket-support outside of an outer cross-beam of the truck, a cradle having lugs at opposite sides of its top to rest upon the bracket and the adjacent cross-beam to suspend the cradle in the space between them, and a dynamo pivotally supported at its bottom within the cradle, of a pulley on the armature-shaft of the dynamo, a drivingpulley on an axle of the truck, a driving-belt extended from the driving

pulley to the pulley on the armature-shaft, a compression-spring for swinging the dynamo against the tension of the belt to control said tension, and means for adjusting the compression of the spring as described.""

The defendant's device, with which a single car was equipped, adjudged by the decree to be an infringement of claims 1 and 2, but not of claim 3, appears in Exhibit Figures 1 and 2, as follows: