Odorless Excavating Apparatus Co. v. Clements. not making use of a vacuum in the receiver at all, and not suggesting either the principle or the arrangement of the "Bull" apparatus. The "Walter" and the "Cherrier' patents are indeed inventions in which, as in the "Bull" patent, atmospheric pressure is used to force the material directly into the receiver, in which a vacuum has been created; but in neither of these do we find any anticipation of the complainant's particular combination, or anything substantially like it. "The Walter" patent describes a large receiving tank or tun mounted on wheels, with two air-pumps attached to it, which are operated by the turning of the wheels in drawing the machine along, by which a vacuum is created in the large tun or receiving-tank. When the apparatus arrives at the place to be cleaned, one end of a pipe is attached to the receiver, and the other dropped into the material in the vault, and then, by opening the pipe into the receiver, the atmospheric pressure forces the material to run up into the receiver. It is plain, we think, that this cumbersome machine lacks all the essential features of the "Bull" patent, and particularly those by which its inventor designed to give it practical utility in cleaning deep vaults where the atmospheric pressure would not force the material to the surface of the ground, and in allowing the use, as receivers, of such casks as could be easily handled and transported when filled. The "Cherrier" patent, as shown by the exhibits filed by the defendant, admitting all his exhibits to be properly before us, is an apparatus operated by an air-pump, and a deodorizer arranged with reference to the receiver and the pipe leading to the vault, substantially as in the "Bull" patent; but the receiver, so far from being independently movable, is firmly fastened to a rigid frame at a considerable height above the ground, with a secondary receiver, also firmly fastened, beneath it, and still beneath that the movable vessel in which the filth is to be carried away. It is not, and it never was intended to be an apparatus which could clean a deep vault, or from which the filth could be carried away in the same receiver into which it was forced by atmospheric Odorless Excavating Apparatus Co. v. Clements. pressure, and it has not the simplicity and general practical utility which distinguishes the "Bull" patent, and we do not find the two inventions at all in conflict. The third claim in the complainant's patent, which is for the combination of a portable night soil cask and float-valve, was also passed upon and sustained by the decree in the case against Quillan, and none of the exhibits of other devices and inventions which have been shown and explained to us satisfy us that this contrivance, or any substantially the same, had been patented or was in common use prior to the "Bull” patent. Float-valves do appear to have been very commonly used in connection with water-tanks, steam-boilers, &c.; but the application of a float-valve, in the manner described and designed by the "Bull" patent, to the airoutlet orifice of an air-tight cask so as thereby to stop the working of the air-pump and the inflow of the fluid material at another orifice, we think was a patentable and useful invention, which we have not been satisfied had ever been known before. The fact of infringement is admitted, if the complainant's patent is sustained, and a decree will be passed in accordance with this opinion, and the cause referred to a master to ascertain the damages. We have been greatly aided in our examination of the issues raised in this case by the excellent manner in which the testimony was taken, and has been printed and presented, and by the able arguments of counsel, and the carefully prepared briefs which were submitted, and which have essentially assisted us. William Price, for the complainant. George W. Dyer and O. F. Bump, for the defendant. Adams v. Illinois Manufacturing Co. J. MCGREGOR ADAMS vs. THE ILLINOIS MANUFACTURING COMPANY. IN EQUITY. Letters patent, No. 50,591, granted to John H. Irwin, October 24th, 1865, for a lantern, the top or dome of which is hinged to the guard on one side, in such manner that it can be closed firmly to the guard, by the operation of a hinge, and a catch on the side opposite the hinge, so that, when the top or dome is lifted or thrown back on the hinge, the globe can be removed from the guard, held valid. (Before BLODGETT, J., Northern District of Illinois, October, 1879.) BLODGETT, J. This is a bill for injunction and account. Complainant is admitted to be the owner of two letters patent issued by the United States to J. H. Irwin, the first, No. 47,551, dated May 2d, 1865, and the other, No. 50,591, dated October 24th, 1865, for improvements in lanterns. The defence is want of novelty in the complainant's pat It is admitted that defendant has made, and is making, lanterns in all respects like those described in the specifications and drawings of Irwin's patent, No. 50,591. If that patent is valid, complainant must have a decree in this suit. The leading feature of this patent is the construction of a loose-globe lantern, so arranged that the globe can be readily removed and replaced, and, at the same time, have the metallic parts of the frame permanently attached together so as to make a basket in which the globe will be held or retained, even if the catch holding the top or dome to the frame of the lantern is unfastened. This is obtained by hinging the top or dome to the guard, on one side, so that it can be closed firmly to the guard by the operation of a hinge and a catch on the side opposite the hinge, so that, when the top or dome is lifted or thrown back on the hinge, the globe can Adams v. Illinois Manufacturing Co. be removed from the guard. The conveniences of this arrangement are obvious. It makes a lantern simple in con. struction, with few complications, easily cleaned, and, perhaps, less liable to accidents than any other form of lantern which has been devised. It is admitted that loose-globe lanterns had been made, long prior to that made by Irwin, in the form described in his patent. The idea of so constructing the lantern that the globe was simply held in place by the guard, and could be readily removed, was not new when Irwin entered the field; but I am satisfied that the Irwin patent can be sustained so far as its particular device is concerned. It is evidently useful, and by its application a very useful lantern is obtained. The loose-globe lanterns which had been made prior to that of Irwin's, as shown in the proof, are: First, Westlake, where the arrangement was such that you are obliged to remove the oil-pot, then the top, and then remove the guard from the globe. Second, Max Miller. By this the parts of the lantern can be separated by means of springs and catches, so that finally the globe can be taken out through the top of the guard. Third, Waters's lantern. This is separated. Fourth, Evans, English lantern. Fifth, Chappell, English patent. Sixth, Butterfield. Guard-clasps around lantern should be called a removable guard. Seventh, Morley. Eighth, Colburn. All these devices have some provision by which the parts of the lantern can be, to a greater or less extent, separated, but they can, none of them, I think, be said to suggest the specific mode by which Irwin made his globe removable, and preserved the connection of the parts of his frame. The patent may be sustained as a special device, and, as defendant infringes that device, the complainant must have a decree. Coburn & Thacher, for the complainant. West & Bond, for the defendant. Evory v. Candee. ALEXANDER F. EVORY ET AL. vs. L. CANDEE & COMPANY. IN EQUITY.* A written license under a patent stated that the patent was "lawfully granted," and provided for the revocation of the license by the licensor, for non-payment of royalty, and declared that such revocation should not impair "the effect of the admission of the validity" of the patent. The licensor revoked the license for said cause and then sued the licensee in equity, for an account and the payment of the royalty which accrued prior to the revocation. The licensee set up that the patent was void, for want of novelty, and that he had never paid any royalty under the license. The plaintiff moved for a decree on the bill and answer and an affidavit, and the defendant put in counter affidavits: Held, that, under Rule 90, in equity, the English practice in 1842 must be followed, and not any later English practice; that the affidavit could not be considered; but that the case should be heard on bill and answer; Held, also, that the licensee was estopped, by the terms of the license. from setting up the invalidity of the patent, as a defence. The licensee also set up a parol agreement, made before the written license, reserving to the licensee a right to use the invention without royalty, if he should become satisfied that the patent was void. After the time when such parol agreement was alleged to have been made, the licensee himself drew said written license: Held, that he could not be allowed to set up such parol agreement. (Before SHIPMAN, J., District of Connecticut, October, 1879.) SHIPMAN, J. This is a bill in equity for an account, and is brought to recover from the defendant the license fees which are claimed to be due to the plaintiffs by virtue of a written agreement between said parties, dated July 10th, 1877, whereby the defendant was licensed, upon an established royalty, to use letters patent dated November 6th, 1866, for a "double |