the top may be dropped in front of the seat as well as behind it, or fixed in an upright position over the carriage, or inclined at various angles; and also in the mechanism by which the same is accomplished, consisting of a pair of rigid arms secured rigidly to the carriage top and jointed to the recessed arcs attached to the body, the arms being provided with spring-bolts, or their equivalent, which engage with the recesses on the said arcs to retain the top in the desired position."

The first claim of the reissue is as follows:

"In a child's carriage, a rigid top or canopy, C, fixed upon the arms, A, pivoted to the sides of the body, so that said canopy may drop in front of the seat or behind it, or be held in an upright or intermediate position, substantially as and for the purposes set forth.

In order to ascertain the validity of the patent, the extent of the invention, if any was made, and the construction of the recited claim, a knowledge of the state of the art is necessary, and is obtained from two patents: one to Bein & Ulrich, of February 11, 1868, and the other to Eliphalet S. Scripture, of June 9, 1868.

The features of the Bein & Ulrich carriage were twofold: First, its seat and calash top were reversible, so that both could be placed at the different ends of the carriage body; and, second, the top "could be supported above the middle of the carriage to act as a sun umbrella." The first was the principal object of the carriage, and the mechanism which was apparently necessary to carry into effect that part of the invention could not accomplish the second object. In order to make the top reversible, its bows were pivoted to narrow iron plates, one depending upon each side of the carriage. The lower ends of these plates were pivoted to stiff bars or links, which also were pivoted at their lower ends to the sides of the carriage, so that there were three loose joints between the top and the sides of the carriage. Each of these links or bars rests upon a pin on the side of the carriage. In order to make the changes from one end to the other, the joints must move easily. To have the top stand vertically, a friction plate and screw are applied to the uppermost joint, and when so applied the top is rigid; but, as the middle joint is loose, it would tumble down if the carriage should be wheeled over a rough place, and if the middle joint was also provided with a friction contrivance, the top would swing from side to side, unless the joint at which the bar was pivoted to the carriage should be made firm.

The Scripture device is an ordinary buggy top, having three bows which are kept apart or brought together "by means of a substitute for the ordinary side brace, lettered E, F, H', in the patent. All these bows are pivoted upon a common pivot at each side of the seat, as in ordinary buggies, and to the place where they are pivoted there is ap plied a friction clamp, substantially the same as that shown in the carriage of defendants herein, by means of which the rearmost bow, called in the patent the back or main bow, a, can be held in any position between its lowermost position behind the driver and a position vertically above the back of the seat, and when it is in either

of these positions, or those intermediate between them, the other bows can be held in various positions with respect to it, by means of the contrivance, E, F, H'." The top cannot be placed at an angle in front of the seat.

The Bein & Ulrich carriage contained the germ of the invention. of the plaintiff's patent. It had a top which, by means of a friction plate and screw, could be placed in a vertical position, and could be inclined to some extent either forward or backward, but could not be held in any position except against the end of the carriage, because the other joints were loose, and the top must tumble down when the carriage was used. The invention of Richardson, the plaintiffs' assignor, consisted in discarding the reversible seat and the reversible character of the top, and in changing the mechanism which supported the top so as to have a pair of rigid arms, one on each side of the carriage, rigidly fixed to a canopy top at their upper ends, and their lower ends pivoted to the sides of the carriage body, by either the described or equivalent means, so that the top can drop in front of the seat or behind it, or be held in an upright or intermediate position. The plate or arm or casting, by means of which it is pivoted to the sides of the body, is firmly attached to the body. In the patented device, the arms were jointed to recessed arcs attached to the body. The first claim is for the combination of the rigid top, the rigid arms pivoted at their lower ends to the sides of the body, by either the de scribed or equivalent means, so that the specified result is produced.

The first question is whether the invention is patentable. The defendant insists that, in view of the Bein & Ulrich and the Scripture patents, it is without patentability. It cannot be successfully claimed that Bein & Ulrich anticipated the Richardson invention in the sense that their patent was infringed thereby, because the Bein & Ulrich arms were constructed upon a wrong principle and were a failure; but it is said that it would require no invention to attach the friction clamp of the Scripture patent to their middle joint. It is true that the described alteration would require no invention, but the device would still be a useless one, for the lower joint at the side of the carriage would be a fatal defect. All the joints must be furnished with friction plates, and even then the support of the top would be cumbersome and insecure. It is also said that no invention would be required to permanently secure the lower section of the Bein & Ulrich arm to the body of the carriage. The leading idea of the carriage, the reversible top, would then be abandoned, and to create a new device from an old one, by altering the structure so as to abandon the principal thing which the old was created to do, and so as to change the principle of the mechanism in order to accomplish what the old structure did not undertake to do, viz., hold the top in an intermediate position, seems to require invention. .

The Scripture patent is not important upon the question of patentability. It used a friction-plate and thumb-screws to hold the rear

most bow of a buggy top in any desired point. The other bows were held in the desired point by means of another contrivance.

The defendant sells children's carriages having a canopy top, rigidly secured to two rigid arms, one depending on each side of the carriage. These arms are pivoted at their lower ends to standards, rigidly fastened on each side of the carriage body. The arms are pivoted by means of friction-plates and a thumb-screw, which causes the plate to which it is attached to relax or renew its grasp so that the top can be moved in any position, and may drop in front of the seat or behind it, or may be held in an upright or intermediate position. This friction device was known to be a substitute for the spring-latch and notches of the plaintiff's patent before its date. The difference between the plaintiff's and the defendant's carriage is that the former has a longer arm than the latter has, and is jointed to a metal casting, which is attached to the body, and which consists in part of a piece of metal in the shape of an arc of a circle, the periphery being provided with a series of notches, and each arm being provided with spring-bolts. The arms of the defendant's carriage are pivoted, by means of friction-plates and thumb-screws, to standards or castings firmly attached to each side of the carriage body. As the patented invention did not consist in the form of the pivoting device, but was broad enough to include equivalents of the described form, infringement is proved.

There should be a decree for an injunction against the infringement of the first claim, and for an accounting.

THE EDWIN, etc.1

(District Court, S. D. New York. February 18, 1885.)

1. SEAMEN-COMPLETION OF VOYAGE-SHIPPING ARTICLES.

Libelants shipped as seamen on board the bark E., and signed articles for "a voyage from Iquiqui, So. Am., to Hampton Roads, for orders, and to any port or ports wherever the master may direct in the U. S. of America * **; the voyage not to exceed eight calendar months." At Hampton Roads the vessel received orders for New York, where, on arrival, she discharged all her cargo. The libelants then left the vessel, and were entered in the log as deserters by the captain, who refused in consequence to pay the balance of wages up to the time they left. Held, that had there been other parts of cargo to be delivered at other ports, under orders received at Hampton Roads, the voyage would not have terminated until the delivery of the residue of the cargo. As it was, the voyage provided for by the shipping articles terminated at New York; the libelants were there entitled to their discharge, and could not be treated as de

serters.

2. SAME-RATE OF WAGES.

One of the libelants shipped as second mate, but was afterwards justifiably disrated. Held, that he was entitled only to the same wages as the other able seamen for the remainder of the voyage.

3. ARTICLES SOLD TO SEAMEN.

Articles sold to seamen by the master during the voyage are allowed as an 1Reported by R. D. & Edward Benedict, Esqs., of the New York bar.

A

offset to wages, at a rate not above 10 per cent. over the cost to the master. charge in excess of that held unreasonable and oppressive. Act June 26, 1884.

In Admiralty.

Alexander & Ash, for libelants.

John R. Walker, for claimants.

BROWN, J. In January, 1884, the libelants shipped as seamen on board the bark Edwin, and signed shipping articles for "a voyage from Iquiqui, So. Am., to Hampton Roads for orders, and to any port or ports wherever the master may direct in the U. S. of America or Dominion of Canada; the voyage not to exceed eight calendar months." The vessel proceeded to Hampton Roads, and there received orders to deliver the cargo in New York, where she arrived in June, 1884, and there discharged all her cargo. The libelants thereupon quitted the ship, taking their clothes with them. The master, claiming that the shipping articles bound them to the ship for eight months, entered them in the log as deserters, and refused to pay the balance of wages up to the time they left. The articles provided for only one voyage; not for one or more voyages during eight calendar months. In my judgment the one voyage stipulated for was ended at New York. New York was the destination fixed by the orders at Hampton Roads; and by the delivery of all the cargo at New York the voyage became ended there. There remained nothing more for the ship to do to complete that voyage. Thenceforward the ship had to seek new employment and a new voyage. Had there been other parts of the cargo to be delivered at other ports, under the or ders received at Hampton Roads, the voyage would not have been terminated at New York, nor until the delivery of the residue of the cargo at the various ports designated. The libelants were entitled to their discharge in New York, and cannot, therefore, be treated as deserters.

Hendricks shipped as second mate at the rate of £6-6s. per month. He entered upon his duties January 25th. The testimony satisfies me that he was not competent for the proper discharge of the duties of second mate, and that he was justifiably disrated by the captain, according to the entry in the log on the eighteenth of February. After that date he is entitled to wages at the rate only of £3-10s., the wages of the other able seamen on the voyage. The articles sold to the seamen during the voyage, and charged against them in the master's account, are allowed at the prices charged, so far as these charges do not exceed an advance of 10 per cent. over the prices actually paid for them by the master. Ten per cent. is a reasonable compensation. for his trouble, and the charges in excess of that are disallowed as unreasonable and oppressive. See Act June 26, 1884. The parties will probably be able to compute the amount due to the libelants. upon the basis of this decision; if not, a reference may be taken for that purpose.

The libelants are entitled to costs.

BARTLETT and others v. His IMPERIAL MAJESTY THE SULTAN, etc.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. March 27, 1885.)

WAREHOUSEMAN-ADVERSE CLAIMANTS OF GOODS-INTERPLEADER.

A warehouseman whose lien for storage is not disputed cannot maintain a bill of interpleader to protect himself against the claim of his bailor and that of a third person who asserts an adverse title to goods stored with him as against the bailor, but must defend himself at law.

Motion for Injunction pendente lite.

W. W. Goodrich, of counsel, for complainants.
Butler, Stillman & Hubbard, for defendants.

Thos. E. Stillman and Adrian H. Joline, of counsel.

WALLACE, J. Complainants' motion for an injunction pendente lite is resisted mainly upon the ground that the complainants' bill is demurrable for want of equity. The bill shows that the complainants, as warehousemen, have in their possession a large quantity of arms, of the value of about $900,000, which were deposited with them by the firm of Drexel, Morgan & Co., and for which, in July, 1882, complainants, at the request of Drexel, Morgan & Co., issued negotiable warehouse receipts; that shortly thereafter the defendant, the sultan of Turkey, claiming to be the owner of the arms, demanded them of complainants, and upon their refusal to give them up brought an action at law in this court for trover; that thereafter the American National Bank of Providence, claiming to be the holder of the warehouse receipts issued by complainants, demanded the arms, and upon complainants refusal to deliver them brought an action against them in this court. The bill also alleges that the Providence Tool Company and one Hunt claim some interest in the arms. The sultan, the American National Bank of Providence, the Providence Tool Company, and Hunt are made defendants in the bill, and the prayer is for an injunction restraining all proceedings on the part of the defendants in relation to the arms, and that they be required to interplead.

So far as appears by the bill, none of the parties claiming the property in complainants' possession dispute complainants' lien for storage and charges. The complainants, therefore, have no interests of their own to assert or protect further than to be relieved from liability to two or more different claimants of the property. None of the defendants claim title derived from the complainants. The American National Bank derives title from the bailors of the complainants, and the other defendants assert a paramount title.

The bill is a pure bill of interpleader, and presents the common case of a bailee who seeks to protect himself against the claim of his bailor and that of a third person who asserts an adverse title to the bailor. The authorities are decisive against his right to maintain an interpleader. It is sufficient to refer to Crawshay v. Thornton, 2 v.23F,no.6-17