Opinion of the Court.

The first claim of the patent is for the combination of a friction table or beam, over which the hide is drawn, a stretcher, substantially as described, and a revolving roller, to which the hide is secured, and around which it is wound as it is drawn over the friction beam and stretcher. This is a claim to mechanism.

The third claim is a claim to an improvement in the method of stretching hides, which consists in dragging the hide over a stretcher and also over a friction table or beam, by means of a revolving roller to which the hide is secured, as described, whereby, as the hide is passed over the table or beam, the thicker portions of the hide are detained or made to lag, by pressure applied to such thicker portions to increase at such points the friction between the hide and the table. The "pressure" mentioned in the third claim is the pressure applied by the hands of the operator to the hide as it passes over the friction table or beam.

It was correctly held by the Circuit Court, that the third claim is for the exclusive right of using the machine referred to in the first claim, and that it cannot be infringed otherwise than by infringing the first claim. If the defendants have used the combination of mechanism covered by the first claim, they have infringed it, and have also thereby used the method covered by the third claim.

Although the third claim is not confined to a passage of the hide through the machine only once, where such single passage does not produce a perfect result, it is manifest from the specification that the use of the combination covered by the first claim is intended and expected to produce complete longitudinal and transverse stretching simultaneously, by a single passage through the machine. Such stretching action, transverse as well as longitudinal, may not be, in a given instance, sufficiently severe, and a second application of the machine to the same hide may be required; but in both cases, the transverse stretching will take place simultaneously with the longitudinal stretching. The defendants do not so use their machine.

In the first claim of the patent, the stretcher-bar K is inter

Opinion of the Court.

posed between the friction table or beam II and the revolving roller E. Therefore, to infringe the first or the third claim. there must be used a stretcher-bar substantially such as described in the specification, of such form as will give a transverse stretch to the hide simultaneously with the giving of the longitudinal stretch.

In the defendants' machine, there is no stretcher-bar K or its equivalent, for transverse stretching, and the transverse stretching is not done simultaneously with the longitudinal stretching. On the contrary, in the defendants' method, the hide is grasped at two opposite portions of its edge and stretched on that line. It is then taken out, grasped between two other opposite portions of its edge, and stretched on that line transversely to the first line. It is thus stretched by the consecutive method operated by the old "dog" machine. That method is excluded by the Coupe specification.

In the defendants' machine, the line of tension runs in different directions at different times. Strains in it are imparted successively and not simultaneously. The theory of the Coupe specification is that, unless the hide is stretched transversely while it is stretched longitudinally, the stretch put into it when it is stretched in one direction will be wholly or partially taken out when it is stretched in another direction.

It is contended, however, that in the use of the defendants' machine, a transverse stretching is produced simultaneously, and by a device substantially like the doubly inclined stretcherbar K of the patent. It is for the plaintiffs to establish that the defendants use substantially the doubly inclined stretcherbar K. The mere smoothing out of wrinkles, and the stretching of the body of the leather so as to reduce it permanently to an equal thickness throughout, are two separate and distinct things. The operation of the doubly inclined stretcher-bar K is not that of merely smoothing out wrinkles in the hide. The Circuit Court seemed to be of the opinion that the outward spreading grooves on the edge of the table in the defendants' machine had a tendency "to stretch the hide laterally, or at least to prevent it from wrinkling, that is, to keep it to its lateral stretch, which seems to be much the same thing." The

Opinion of the Court.

machine of the defendants has divergent grooves or serrations formed on the surface of the friction table. We are of opinion that it is not a sound conclusion that the corrugations on the friction beam in the defendants' machine perform the office of Coupe's stretcher-bar K, interposed between the friction beam and the roller H. While it is true that the corrugations prevent the hide from wrinkling, yet, as there is not in the defendants' machine any lateral stretch, it is not true that such corrugations keep the hide to its lateral stretch. There is no lateral stretch which is kept from going back by such corrugations. Any office of the corrugations to keep a lateral stretch from going back would be unnecessary in the defendants' machine, because the hide is to be taken out and reattached at new points, and stretched longitudinally in the very direction in which the previous transverse stretching, if it existed, would have been performed.

It is shown by the evidence that the hide does not, in the defendants' machine, enter the grooves or serrations to any appreciable extent; that they are not deep enough to have any such effect; that there is no indication on the upper surface of the hide that its lower surface enters into the serrations; that there is no indication that the under surface of the hide is not supported by a smooth bar or table; and that this is shown by the fact that the upper surface of the hide appears smooth where it lies over the grooves or serrations. It is not shown by the evidence for the plaintiffs that the grooves are not too shallow to have any effect in giving lateral movement to the hide, or that the hide would not show on the upper surface whether the under surface was engaged in the grooves, or that there was any appearance on the upper surface indicating any such engagement.

Irrespectively of this, the combination of the first claim of the patent is one in which the stretcher-bar is interposed between the friction table or beam and the roller. In the defendants' machine, the organization is different.

We are of opinion that the first claim is not infringed, because the defendants do not have the stretcher-bar K, or any substitute for it, performing the same operation. They

Opinion of the Court.

get their transverse stretch by taking out the hide and grasping it at new points, and stretching it between those points. The corrugations only keep the hide from wrinkling, an operation which the patent says is performed before the stretcher-bar acts upon the hide. It does not appear that, as the defendants' machine is used, there is any lateral stretching of the hide simultaneously with its longitudinal stretching. The corrugations are not combined with the friction beam and the roller, as the convex stretcher-bar of the patent is; for that is interposed between the friction beam and the roller, and the description in the specification is that the hide, after being longitudinally stretched on the friction beam, passes to and is stretched transversely by the stretcher-bar; whereas, in the defendants' machine, the corrugations are integral with the friction beam. It would not be practicable to make the convex stretcher-bar of the patent integral with the friction beam. The specification describes the stretcher-bar as having a lateral movement relatively to the friction beam; and this excludes the idea of the stretcher-bar being integral with the friction beam.

The defendants do not stretch the hide longitudinally and transversely at the same time, but only stretch it longitudinally in different successive directions across the hide.

The third claim is not infringed, because the described method of operation of the combination of the first claim is not performed by the defendants.

The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court with a direction to dismiss the bill with costs.

Opinion of the Court.

LUXTON v. NORTH RIVER BRIDGE COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY.

No. 1106. Submitted December 22, 1892. - Decided January 16, 1893.

An order of the Circuit Court of the United States, appointing commissioners to assess damages for land in New Jersey taken by the North River Bridge Company for the approaches to a bridge across the North or Hudson River between New York and New Jersey, under the act of July 11, 1890, c. 669, § 4, is not a final judgment, upon which a writ of error will lie.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. Gilbert Collins for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Joseph D. Bedle for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to reverse an order made by the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey, on the petition of the North River Bridge Company, appointing commissioners to assess damages for the appropriation and condemnation of land of the plaintiff in error in the city of Hoboken, county of Hudson and State of New Jersey, for the approaches to a bridge across the North or Hudson River between the States of New York and New Jersey, under the act of Congress of July 11, 1890, c. 669, (26 Stat. 268,) entitled "An act to incorporate the North River Bridge Company, and to authorize the construction of a bridge and approaches at New York City, across the Hudson River, to regulate commerce in and over such bridge between the States of New York and New Jersey, and to establish such bridge a military and post road," the constitutionality of which, as authorizing such appropriation and condemnation, is denied by the plaintiff in error.

VOL. CXLVI-22