RODGERS, Immigration Com'r, v. UNITED STATES ex rel. ELSBERG.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. February 13, 1907.)

No. 41.

APPEAL AND ERROR-RECORD-INSUFFICIENCY.

It is the duty of a party appealing to see that there is sufficient in the transcript of the record brought to the appellate court to intelligibly present the questions sought to be reviewed.

[Ed. Note. For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 3, Appeal and Error, §§ 2624, 2627.]

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

J. C. Swartley and J. Whitaker Thompson, for appellant.
David Phillips, for appellee.

Before DALLAS and GRAY, Circuit Judges, and BRADFORD, District Judge.

BRADFORD, District Judge. This is an appeal from an order of the court below discharging Lewis Elsberg on a writ of habeas corpus. The petition states that he was refused a landing in the United States and was ordered to be deported "on the authority of the marine surgeon's certificate, 'that the said Lewis Elsberg was an imbecile.'" On the other hand, the return made by the International Mercantile Marine Company states that admission was refused and deportation ordered because Lewis Elsberg was likely to become a public charge. The first two assignments of error are as follows:

"1. The learned Judge erred in holding that the proceedings before the Board of Inquiry at Philadelphia, were not final.

2. The learned Judge erred in holding that the proceedings before the Board of Inquiry at Philadelphia, were reviewable by the Court."

If there were any proceedings before a board of special inquiry at Philadelphia touching the right of Lewis Elsberg to land it may be of vital importance that they should be disclosed to this court. But aside from the statements contained in the above assignments there is absolutely nothing to show that any proceedings were had before a board of special inquiry at Philadelphia or elsewhere. Indeed, the transcript of record before us does not disclose any evidence on either side on any branch of the case. It is again necessary to remind counsel who are preparing cases for review in this court of the importance of having enough appear in the record brought up to render it intelligible. As stated by Mr. Chief Justice Waite in Railway Co. v. Stewart, 95 U. S. 279, 284, 24 L. Ed. 431: "It is clearly the duty of the party who takes an appeal to see to it that the record is properly presented here." The appellant has leave within thirty days to file in this court a supplementary transcript of record showing the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced before the court below. Should such supplementary transcript not be filed within that period the appeal will be dismissed.

And it is ordered by the court that copies of this opinion and order forthwith be transmitted by the clerk to the parties to this cause or their counsel of record.

CENTRAL TRUST CO. v. CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF ILLINOIS et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals. Seventh Circuit. February 5, 1907.)

No. 1,344.

POST OFFICE-Delivery OF MAIL-SIMILARITY OF NAMES OF CORPORATIONS. A decree affirmed which denied an injunction to a corporation to restrain the delivery of mail to defendant having a similar name, when so addressed that it might have been intended for either party; there being no claim of an intentional refusal to deliver to complainant mail so addressed to its business rooms or otherwise as to leave no doubt as to the identity of the addressee.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.

For opinion below, see 149 Fed: 789.

Daniel McCaskill and O. L. McCaskill, for appellant.

Max Pam, Harry B. Hurd, and Hugo Pam, for appellee.

Before GROSSCUP, BAKER, and SEAMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. From our affirming the decree without repeating or enlarging upon the views orally expressed at the argument, the parties must not infer that we sanction the delivery to the appellee company of mail so specifically addressed to appellant's business rooms that no doubt can exist as to the identity of the addressee. Appellant's bill, in our opinion, is bottomed on its asserted right to have delivered to it all mail addressed "Central Trust Company, Chicago, Illinois." There is no allegation of the postmaster's refusal to deliver to appellant the mail specifically addressed to its business rooms. An injunction should not issue on the bare fact that such mail may inadvertently have been delivered to the appellee company. In such instances the appellee company should at once return that mail unopened to the postmaster for prompt delivery to appellant.

The decree is affirmed.

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. BULLOCK ELECTRIC MFG. CO. et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 21, 1907.)

No. 1,566.

1. PATENTS-INVENTION-FUNCTIONS NOT SPECIFIED.

It is not necessary for a patentee to describe in detail all the beneficial functions which he claims will result from his invention; but it is enough if such functions are evident and obviously contribute to the success of the invention, and they may in such case properly be taken into account in estimating its novelty and utility.

2. SAME-TRANSFER OF DEVICE TO NEW ART.

The relation between the mechanical and electrical arts is not so close that the adaptation of a known mechanical device to a new use in an

electric motor may not involve invention, where the result is an improve ment over prior constructions of great utility and success.

[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 38, Patents, §§ 31 32.]

& SAME-ELECTRIC MOTOR.

The Parcelle patent, No. 463,704, for an improvement in an electric motor and dynamo, which consists of means for detachably fastening a laminated pole piece to the solid yoke, covers an improvement of utility and great commercial success, which involved magnetic and electric, as well as mechanical, problems, and was not anticipated, and involves invention; also held infringed.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western Division of the Southern District of Ohio.

For opinion below, see 146 Fed. 552.

W. K. Richardson, for appellant.

Thomas F. Sheridan and Clifton V. Edwards, for appellees. Before LURTON, SEVERENS, and RICHARDS, Circuit Judges.

RICHARDS, Circuit Judge. This was a suit in equity brought by the General Electric Company against the Bullock Electric Manufacturing Company and others, for an injunction, with the usual prayer for an accounting, for the infringement of claim 1 of letters patent No. 463,704, issued November 24, 1891, to Albert L. Parcelle, the assignor of the complainant, for improvements in an electric motor and dynamo. The answer set up want of novelty and invention and denied infringement. The court below in a short opinion held. that patentable invention was not shown and dismissed the bill. From this decree an appeal has been taken.

The Parcelle invention in suit relates to the field magnet of a dynamo and provides a method of firmly fastening the laminated pole piece to the solid yoke thereof. A dynamo consists of two parts, the field magnet and the armature; the one being rotated and the other stationary. In the stationary field machine the armature is rotated within the field magnet, while in the revolving one the field magnet is rotated within the armature. The field magnet consists of a yoke and pole pieces, the number of the latter varying, but being alternately north and south; the magnetic lines of force being projected from the tip of one pole through the armature core back into the tip of the adjacent and opposite pole, and thence through the yoke to the first pole. As the conductors on the surface of the armature move through these lines of force, a current of electricity is generated. The armature is, of course, not in contact with the pole pieces of the field magnet, since the latter must rotate within the former, or the reverse, in order to generate electric energy. Yet at the same time the air gap which separates the two must be kept very small, in some cases not wider than one-eighth of an inch, in order not to interfere with the magnetic circuit. This intimate proximity of the pole pieces to the armature necessarily calls for careful and precise construction and adjustment of the former with respect to the latter. Early in the history of the art, as early as 1879, it was found to be desirable to use toothed arma

ture cores, and it was then ascertained that, in order to avoid Foucault or Eddy currents in the field magnet pole pieces, it was necessary to laminate the latter. This necessity, however, did not extend to the yoke of the field magnet. It was cheaper and equally effective to keep it of solid iron. The problem, then, was to fasten the laminated pole piece firmly and rigidly to the solid iron yoke, so as to subserve all magnetic and electric requirements, resist all centrifugal and magnetic strains, permit the ready removal of the pole piece sidewise for repairs, and secure and preserve an expanded tip.

The court below, in its opinion, sought to limit the requirements of the problem solved by Parcelle to those of a purely mechanical nature. True, there was a mechanical problem, the firm fastening of the laminated pole piece to the iron yoke; but it was complicated by certain magnetic and electric conditions. These conditions brought about the necessity of the laminated pole piece, and the mechanical problem of fastening it to the yoke was varied by the magnetic and electric requirements to be subserved. The pole piece had to be laminated, yet each laminæ had to be clamped to the yoke so as to make a good magnetic joint.. It was desirable to make the pole piece removable, in order to be able to use an expanded pole tip; and the side pieces could not in all cases be made thick enough to receive the bolts to hold the pole piece to the yoke without interfering with the magnetic and electric requirements of the problem. Before the necessity of laminating the pole pieces was known, solid pole pieces were attached to the yoke by bolts or screws. These pole pieces were readily removable sidewise. But with laminated pole pieces it became impracticable to do this, although the Dresskell patent, granted January 27, 1891, shows a method of tapping a bolt directly into the laminated plates; but this was a defective method, because of the fragile nature of the laminæ.

Prior to the invention in suit, either the pole pieces were made integral with the yoke, and both laminated, as shown in the Jablochkoff, Zipernowsky, Schmidt, and other patents, or by casting the yoke around the laminated pole pieces, as in the Schmidt patent of December, 1889, or by bolting the side plates of the pole piece to the core, they being thickened for that purpose, as in the Storey patent of 1890. None of these methods of fastening the pole piece to the yoke was esteemed successful. Laminating both the pole piece and the yoke. was expensive, and the pole piece was integral with the yoke. The pole piece could not always be cast firmly within the yoke, and, besides, was irremovable; and to place the bolts in the side plates made them too thick and interfered with the preservation of the proper magnetic and electric conditions. Parcelle solved the mechanical problem of detachably fastening the laminated pole piece to the solid yoke by anchoring into the laminated plates a supporting bar, into which the bolts which held the pole piece to the yoke were firmly screwed.. We insert here figures 1 and 3 of the Parcelle patent, which, taken in connection with the appropriate extract from the specification, which follows, sufficiently explains the patented structure: