heat, but that the oil or varnish itself is modified and oxidized harmoniously with the iron, and thus a better effect is produced than can result from varnishing colored iron. The patent might possibly be construed to include the process last mentioned—that is, a coloring of the iron, and fixing the color by baking the varnish; but there was evidence in the leading case, before Mr. Justice Clifford, that a varnish, though not an oil varnish, had been baked upon steel pens, and that a somewhat similar mode of preserving the color of scythes had been used before the plaintiff made his invention. It is under these circumstances that the plaintiff has given the construction above referred to, and has not, as yet, claimed that his combination is used unless both the iron and the varnish are oxidized by the heat. The plaintiff moves for an attachment against the defendants for selling certain butts for hinges, and certain handles for doors and drawers. The articles appear to have been made by P. & F. Corbin, who are under injunction at the plaintiff's suit in the district of Connecticut. The defence maintain that the articles were carefully and scrupulously made in such a mode as not to infringe the patents. There is no doubt that these articles are made. and sold in imitation of the plaintiff's bronze, though much inferior to it; but the question is whether the manufacturers have succeeded in avoiding the patent. As to the butts, they insist that they were made by first coloring the iron by heat, then putting on a transparent coach varnish, and hardening it by heat, but not so great a heat as will oxidize the varnish. As to the handles, the defence is that the bronze color comes from the varnish alone, which is not a transparent varnish, but one containing pigments which assume this color at a less heat than will oxidize the iron beneath. This process, if it be the one employed, is admitted in the patent to be old. I have read the affidavits with great care, and upon them I am of opinion that it is not proved that the plaintiff's process is employed in the articles now complained of. If I am mistaken, as it is by no means improbable that I may be, upon ex parte evidence, the final decrees in the circuit court for the district of Connecticut, and in this court, where the same questions are pending in a way better calculated to elicit the exact truth, will set the matter right; but, taking the evidence as I find it, including such inspection as one who is not an expert can give to the articles themselves, I do not feel at liberty to say that there has been a breach of the injunction. Motion denied. TUCKER v. P. & F. CORBIN. (Circuit Court, D. Connecticut. March 2, 1880.) TUCKER V. BURDITT and others, ante, 808, followed in this case. In Equity. Motion for an Attachment. SHIPMAN, D. J. This is a motion for an attachment against the defendants for an alleged violation of the injunction order heretofore issued by this court in the above-entitled cause. The same questions which are presented in the affidavits were tried by Judge Lowell upon a motion for attachment by the present plaintiff against Burditt and others. The motion was denied, and, after examining the various exhibits in the case, I can do no more than refer to the clearly expressed opinion of Judge Lowell as an embodiment of my views. I do not think that any benefit would be conferred upon the parties by now attempting to modify or vary the language which he has used. In both the Connecticut and Massachusetts cases there were draw pulls which were, after being cleaned from iron scale, tumbled in a barrel containing bits of brass, or brass "scratchers." By this process the surface of the articles was "brassed," or was more or less covered with a deposit of the softer metal. They were then dipped in copal varnish, known as a bronzing varnish, which was hardened in an oven heated to a moderate heat, but not to so great a heat as to oxydize the varnish. The conclusions of Judge Lowell, as to the articles which he specifically mentions, apply with equal force to the "brassed" articles, which he does not particularly specify. Indeed, the plaintiff admitted that upon the affidavits no other course could be taken than to deny the motion, but he insisted earnestly that there must be a mistake in the statements contained in the affidavits, which mistake could be detected by an expert, who should be directed to make personal inspection at the defendants' factory. I do not now think that there is such a mistake, and, not suspecting one, it would be a very unusual course to refer the question for further investigation. It may be that sometimes there is more heat in the oven than at other times, and that inadvertently an oxydizing result has been reached; but the exhibit of varnished and unoxydized butts, which were put into an oven with each batch of varnished oxydized butts, seems to me to be as nearly conclusive on the question of heat, to which the articles were subjected, as any test well can be. The butts which were dried upon the radiator in my chambers have the same general appearance which the ovendried butts present. It is manifest that the distance between non-infringement and infringement is a narrow one, and one which unscrupulous people can easily cross; but this exposedness of the patentee to fraud results from the fact that the patent, while it is of importance and of benefit to the public, is not of broad scope. To Mr. Justice Clifford's construction of the patent neither party made objection upon the trial of this motion. The motion is denied. THE WOVEN WIRE MATTRESS Co. v. PALMER. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. May 27, 1880.) 1. WOVEN WIRE MATTRESS Co. v. WIRE WEB BED Co., 1 FED. REP. 222, followed in this case. In Equity. C. E. Perkins, for plaintiff. BLATCHFORD, C. J. Within the rulings made by Judge Blodgett and Judge Shipman, on the plaintiff's patent, I am of opinion that the frame purchased by Roberts from the defendant infringes claims 1 and 3 of the plaintiff's pat ent. It has, substantially, the inclined end rail of the patent, made in two parts, for the purpose of clamping the fabric and holding it suspended by means of the inclination between the points of attachment. In it the end rails are raised above the side rails and held in place by corner irons, or standards, which perform the same function as the plaintiff's standard. There are no inclined recesses in its standards, to hold the ends of the end rails in an inclined position, but the end rails are evidently purposely inclined, and held so by a screw bolt passing through a part of the standard and into the lower end rail. So, too, the end rail is double. The ends of the fabric are bent over the upper edge of the lower end rail, and the bolts, or nails, or screws, which go through the upper end rail and through the fabric and into the lower end rail, aid in holding the fabric to the frame. The side rails, standards, and end rails on such frame are the manifest equivalent of those in the plaintiff's patent. I do not consider claims 2 and 4, and do not decide anything as to their construction, or as to the infringement, but grant the injunction asked for on claims 1 and 3. THE MAMIE. (District Court, E. D. Michigan. January 24, 1881.) 1. LIMITED LIABILITY ACT-STEAM PLEASURE YACHT CHARTERED FOR HIRE. The owners of a small steam pleasure yacht, engaged in navigating the Detroit river, running in and out of the port of Detroit, held, not entitled to the benefits of the limited liability act, although at the time of the loss, out of which the cause of action arose, she was chartered to a third person for hire. It is only vessels engaged in what is ordinarily known as maritime commerce, which are subject to the provisions of this act, and the facts that they are duly enrolled, licensed, and inspected, and are otherwise subject to the navigation laws of the United States, are immaterial. In Admiralty. On petition of owners for limitation of liability. The petition amended set forth-First, that petitioners are and were, at the time of the collision hereinafter mentioned, the sole owners of the steam-yacht Mamie, a vessel enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade, and engaged in commerce and navigation between ports and places in different states and territories, and foreign countries, upon the great lakes, and the navigable waters connecting the same. Second, that on the evening of July 22, 1880, a collision occurred in the Detroit river between the Mamie, then on a trip and carrying passengers from Monroe to Detroit, in the state of Michigan, and the steam-boat Garland, also an enrolled and licensed vessel, and engaged in the same commerce. Third, that in consequence of such collision the Mamie was sunk and became a total wreck, and seventeen passengers were drowned. Fourth, that such collision and loss of life were not caused by the design or neglect of the petitioners, or either of them, but the same happened, and the loss, damage, injury, and loss of life resulting therefrom were occasioned, without the design, neglect, fault, or privity of the petitioners or either of them; wherefore, they claim a limitation of liability as provided in the Revised Statutes, and offer to pay into court the value of their interest in the Mamie and her freight, pending |