Winans v. Boston & Providence Railroad Co. 2 Story. sure of the load, and their tendency to wear; they may therefore be short, and are consequently strong, when of comparatively very small diameter. "The tendency to lateral movement is checked, or limited by forming the end, or point of the axle, or gudgeon, so as to be met occasionally by the external cap or cover of the gudgeon box, when lateral pressure occurs. By placing the bearing outside, (as aforesaid,) the diameter of the wheels may be enlarged with more advantage than formerly, as the axles between the wheels may be made of any required strength, (to resist the increased stress thrown on to that part of them by an enlargement of the wheels,) without affecting the size or strength of the bearing journals. "By the foregoing means, the leverage of the wheels (or the mechanical advantage with which the moving power acts, to overcome the resistance to motion) is increased and consequently the friction or resistance to motion in railroad carriages, diminished to a greater extent than heretofore. "This improvement in the axles and journals of railway carriages, was devised and carried into operation on my experimental railway, and exhibited to various persons in the early part of the year 1827; and it was put into practical operation, under my direction, on the Baltimore and Ohio, and on the Liverpool and Manchester Railroads, in the early part of 1829, in connection with another improvement for the further diminution of friction, by means of a revolv[* 414] ing bearing, or friction wheel, for which other improvement a patent was granted to me on the 11th of October, 1828. "The object of the invention, and a practical demonstration of its utility having been shown, its application and adaptation to the different railroad carriages, burdened wagons, locomotive engines, &c., and to the different bearing boxes that may be preferred for different purposes, (either revolving or com Winans v. Boston & Providence Railroad Co. 2 Story. mon,) will be evident and easy, to any person acquainted with the building of railway carriages. But to render it still more so, the following general directions and proportions are given, &c. "I therefore declare that the improvement, or improvements, above explained and described, in diminishing the resistance to motion in wheeled carriages to be used on railways, which I claim as my own invention, is the extending the axles each way outside of a pair, or pairs, of wheels, far enough to form external gudgeons to receive the bearing box of the load body, and diminished as aforesaid with a view to lessen the resistance of friction, as small as its situation, with the use of the most favorable metal for wear, will permit. Thus conveniently increasing the leverage of the wheels, withouti mpairing their effective strength or durability." At the trial it appeared that Winans had obtained a patent for the invention in England in Oct. 1828, and afterwards on the 30th of July, 1831, he took the present patent. It was argued by B. R. Curtis, for the defendants, that this was too late; and Shaw v. Cooper, 7 Peters' R. 292, 320, 322; Act of 1839, ch. 88, sec. 7; and McClurg v. Kingsland, 1 How. Sup. Ct. R. 202; S. C. 17 Peters' R. 228, were cited. But the main ground was, that the invention was not new, but had been before applied to other carriages, although not to railway carriages, before the paten tee applied it to railways. The patent was not [* 415] for the application of the improvement to railway carriages alone, but it was "to railway and other wheeled carriages." Edgeworth on Roads and Carriages, printed in 1817, appendix 2, pages 71, 73, 76; and Dr. Hook's Essay upon Carriages, printed in 1684, pages 145, 146, were cited in support of the objection. Winans v. Boston & Providence Railroad Co. 2 Story. C. G. Loring, for the plaintiff, argued, that it was the intention of the plaintiff to claim as his invention the application of extended axles of wheels to carriages with flanges on railroads; that the plaintiff claimed this particular combination as new and it was so. But he did not mean to claim the invention as applicable to all other wheel carriages. STORY, J. I fear that it is impossible to give this limited interpretation to the plaintiff's patent. The patent itself is for a new and useful improvement of railway and other wheeled carriages;" and the specification expressly states, that the patentee has invented "an improvement in the construction of the axles, or bearings, of railway, or other wheeled carriages," and then he proceeds to give a description thereof. It is plain from this language that he does not limit his invention to railway carriages; but he insists, that it is new as to other carriages. It is true, that in summing up his claim, in the close of the specification, he seems to use language somewhat more restrictive; but even there he says, that what he claims as his invention is, "the extending the axles each way outside of a pair or pairs of wheels, far enough to form external gudgeons to receive the bearing box of the load body, and diminished as aforesaid with a view to lessen the resistance of friction, as small as its situation, with the use of the most favorable metal for wear, will permit ; thus conveniently increasing the leverage of the wheels without impairing their effective strength or durability." Now the inven[*416] tion, as stated in this general form, is precisely what the defendants insist is not new, but was well known before, as applied, not to railway, but to other carriages. If this be true, it seems difficult to perceive how the present patent can be maintained. A verdict was thereupon taken pro forma for the defend Carver v. Braintree Manufacturing Co. 2 Story. ants, with liberty to move a new trial upon the question of law. No such motion was made. ELEAZER CARVER V. BRAINTREE MANUFACTURING COMPANY. [2 Story, 432. October T. 1843.] The Patent Act of 1836, ch. 357, sect. 13, and the Act of 1837, ch. 45, sect. 8, authorizing the reissue of a patent, because of a defective or redundant specification or description, without fraud, or for the purpose of adding thereto an improvement, do not require the patentee to claim, in his renewed patent, all things which were claimed in his original patent, but gives him the privilege of retaining whatever he deems proper. Where the plaintiff, in a patent for "a new and useful improvement in the ribs of the cotton gin," claimed as a part of his invention, the increasing the space between the upper and lower surface of the rib, either "by making the ribs thicker at that part, or by a fork, or by any other variation of the particular form; It was held, that the claim was sufficiently accurate as a matter of law, and that it was not necessary that he should describe all possible modes by which the rib might be varied, but only the most important, and that mere formal variations therefrom would be violations of the patent. Objections, that a patented invention is old; or that the specification in a patent does not clearly describe the mode of making the machine; or that the original and the renewed patent are not for the same invention; or that either were obtained with a fraudulent intent; all involve matters of fact, and are for the jury, upon the evidence, to decide. Where the original patent was for "a new and useful improvement in the ribs of saw gins for ginning cotton," and the renewed patent was for "a new and useful invention in the manner of forming the ribs of saw gins for ginning * cotton,” and in the renewed patent was claimed, in addi- [ * 433 ] tion to the thickness of the rib, the sloping up of it so as to leave no shoulder; It was held, that the claim in the renewed patent, was not for two distinct improvements, but for additional parts of the same improvement, and that the same thing was patented in both patents. Patents are to be interpreted by a consideration of the whole instrument, and it is to be thereby determined what thing is intended to be patented. The Statute of Massachusetts of 1821, ch. 28, relating to the individual liabili ties of members of manufacturing corporations, is to be construed as a remedial statute, and the phrase "debts contracted," as employed therein, means Carver v. Braintree Manufacturing Co. 2 Story. not only debts in the strict sense of the term, but any liabilities incurred by the corporation. If the liability be for unliquidated damages arising from contract or tort, it relates to the time of its origin, and not of its liquidation; and, therefore, It was held, that the testimony of Edson, who was a member of the corporation at the time when the liability asserted in the present suit arose, must be rejected, although he had since sold out all his interest. CASE for infringement of a patent, dated the 16th of November, 1839, for "a new and useful improvement in the ribs of the cotton gin." The present patent was a renewed patent, granted upon the surrender of the original patent, dated the 12th of June, 1838, which was cancelled on account of a defective specification. The specification annexed to the original patent. was as follows," To all whom it may concern: Be it known that I, Eleazer Carver, of Bridgewater, in the county of Plymouth, and State of Massachusetts, have invented a certain improvement in the manner of forming the ribs of saw gins, for the ginning of cotton, and I do hereby declare, that the following is a full and exact description thereof: "In the cotton gin, as heretofore known and used, the fibres of the cotton are drawn by the teeth of circular saws through a grating formed of a number of parallel bars or ribs, having spaces between them sufficient to allow the saws to pass, carrying the fibres of the cotton with them, (which are then brushed off by a revolving brush,) but not wide enough to let the seeds and other foreign substances pass *434] through. Above the saws, the ribs come in close contact, thus forming a shoulder at the top of the space between them. "Various forms have been given to the bars or ribs, with a view to procure a free passage for the cotton, but the cotton gin, as heretofore made, has been always subject to the inconvenience of the grate becoming choked by hard masses of cotton, and motes, or false seeds, collecting in the upper part |