son patents, and it held that defendants' valve was within those patents, and it gave a broad construction to the Richardson 1866 patent. Upon this point I approve and adopt the conclusions reached by the master in the following language, taken from his report, in considering the accounting in No. 1,184, for the period from February 15, 1879, to September 25, 1883:

"I attribute the entire commercial value of the valves manufactured and sold by the defendants to the improvement covered by Richardson's patent of 1866. Richardson's invention, as described and claimed in that patent, revolutionized the art of relieving steam-boilers from steam pressure rapidly approaching the dangerous point. It made effective for that purpose,-rapidly, and with comparatively small loss of steam,-apparatus, described in other patents, which very nearly embodied Richardson's invention but did not actually contain it. The supreme court, in these cases, has defined this invention, and has declared it to be a vital one,-a life-giving principle to structures very nearly approaching, but not quite containing, an embodiment of Richardson's discovery. It was contended before me that none of the complainants' valves of commerce contained this invention of Richardson, but, upon the whole evidence, with specimens of all the different valves, put on the market by the complainants, before me, I find that they all contain Richardson's improvement of 1866. The supreme court has decided in these cases that the defendants' valves contain this invention, and it is under this decision that the accounting in No. 1,184 is before me. Eliminate this invention from the defendants' valves, and they would be commercially worthless. No substitute for this invention has been suggested to me, and I know of none, which the defendants could have used in its place to have made their valves of commercial value. The defendants claim that some of the profits which they have made are due to the peculiar form of their valves, but the form which they used in making their valves was the form in which they clothed the Richardson invention, the life of their valves, and without that life the Crosby form is worthless. The defendants claimed before me that the complainants, in the accounting in 1,184, which relates only to the Richardson patent of 1866, should prove specifically the value of the invention secured to them under that patent as used by the defendants, and that, as it was claimed by complainants (and the supreme court has so decided) that defendants used also Richardson's invention of 1869, the value of the invention secured to the complainants by the 1869 patent must be determined, and not made an element in the recovery to be had under the accounting in 1,184. I have no means of determining the value of that invention as used by the defendants from February 15, 1879, to September 25, 1883, or of stating in dollars and cents how much of the profits of the defendants during that period is due to that invention. The complainants claimed that during that period all the profits of the defendants were due to the Richardson invention of 1866, and, as the Richardson invention of 1869 belonged also to the complainants, and as the complainants and defendants were respectively the same in each case, 1,184 relating to the said invention of 1866, and 1,199 relating to the invention of 1869, and, as the said period from February 15, 1879, to September 25, 1883, was included within the period to be covered by the accounting in each case, no injustice is done the defendants in acceding to the complainants' claim in this regard: and this is especially so in view of the fact that the defendants claimed that the adjustable device as shown in the Richardson patent of 1869 is worthless as such, and that the cost of the Crosby valve is less without the said so-called adjustable ring, and is a better and more useful safety appliance."

This disposes of the principal question raised by the defendants' exceptions to the master's report. As for the objection to the findings of the master respecting expenses to be allowed for certain valves destroyed, which forms the subject-matter of the first exception, I think the master was right in the conclusion he reached. The defendants were not charged on valves which were subsequently destroyed, or, if so, they were not charged upon the new valves which replaced them. See master's note 29, page 44 of master's report. The master properly disallowed the cost of destroyed valves.

The complainants have filed two exceptions to the master's report in No. 1,184,-one relating to cost of patterns allowed to the defendants by the master, and the other to the allowance of uncollectible items, etc., in master's Schedule C. I see no sufficient reason to disturb these findings. If there is error in the allowance of any of the items of Schedule C, the suggestion of error was not made to the master in such form as to give the court the benefit of his judgment thereon.

In No. 1,199, the complainants have filed several exceptions. They except to the finding of the master that he had no means of determining, from the evidence before him, what portion of the defendants' profits were attributable to the use of the Richardson patent of 1869, and they further except to the finding of the master that the defendants have made only nominal profits from the infringement of the 1869 patent, and that the complainants have suffered only nominal damages from said infringement. Down to the expiration of the Richardson 1866 patent, or until September 25, 1883, the complainants contended, in the case brought upon that patent, that all the profits of the defendants were due to that patent, and the master so found. If the 1869 patent contributed more than a nominal value to the defendants' infringing valves during the life of the 1866 patent, it was the duty of the complainants to have shown. that fact in the suit upon the 1866 patent, and to have allowed a corresponding reduction in the finding, of profits in that suit. After contending for and accepting such a finding, that the complainants were entitled to all the profits of the defendants from their infringement of the 1866 patent by the manufacture and sale of valves containing the Richardson inventions of 1866 and 1869, they cannot be permitted, upon a bill of complaint against the same defendants, to recover more than nominal profits or damages for an infringement of the 1869 patent only.

Upon the question of damages the master finds as follows:

.

"With regard to these claims for damages, I find, upon an examination of the evidence before me, that, if I allow any substantial portion of them, I must allow them in full as claimed. I say substantial portion,' because there are a few dollars that I might, perhaps, allow in No. 1,184, upon special evidence relating to a few items, but beyond a few dollars the claims stand or fall as a whole. I know no justifiable method of scaling them. The evidence in support of these claims comes from Charles A. Moore, the manager of the business of complainants so far as putting valves on the market is concerned, and the evidence against these claims comes from Francis T. Simmons, a salesman of defendants from February, 1878, to May, 1886, and George H. Eager, treasurer of the defendants. The evidence shows that the complainants ac

quired the Richardson patents February 15, 1879. The defendants were at that time established in the valve business, and sold steam safety valves in competition with whatever valves were in the market. There were persons and firms to whom they sold their productions, and whom they considered their customers. The complainants, in 1879, soon after acquiring the Richardson patents, issued a catalogue giving their prices for safety valves, but quoted their valves in 1879, to some parties at least, at a large discount from their catalogue prices,-in one instance a discount of fifty per cent. The basis of these claims is that the complainants had an established lowest price for their several classes of valves in 1879. I do not think the evidence supports this proposition to the extent that I can find that the prices given in Mr. Moore's tables, and annexed to complainants' charges in damages, are the lowest prices of the complainants in 1879. The complainants went into active competition with all valve producers of every class. Doubtless the defendants were their chief competitors, but I cannot determine, from the evidence, how much of the reduction in prices, which the complainants made from time to time, was due to defendants' competition and how much to other causes. Doubtless both parties were trying to hold the market as against each other and as against all other competitors in the business. Under these circumstances, a general claim, even accompanied by a specification of items, cannot be maintained upon testimony relating to comparatively few instances, as in this case, and especially where some of the instances are subsequently explained in a manner to materially affect their force as evidence bearing upon the question of damages resulting from direct competition."

The complainants have filed no exception to the finding of the master in No. 1,184, that they have suffered no damages in addition to profits. Upon the whole evidence on this question of damages, I think the master was also right in finding that the complainants are entitled to recover in No. 1,199 only nominal damages.

The exceptions in both cases are overruled, and the master's report confirmed. So ordered.

WALKER V. CITY OF TERRE HAUTE.

(Circuit Court, D. Indiana. October 29, 1890.)

1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-FIRE-ALARMS-REISSUE.

Letters patents issued July 13, 1875, to Robert Bragg, for the combination with a fire alarm gong of mechanism which automatically releases the fire-engine horses from their stalls, contained the following claim: "The rod with its knob and the oscillating lever, for the purpose of releasing a suspended weight by the direct action of a gong-hammer." The reissued patent, No. 6,831, issued January 4, 1876, contained these claims: "The trip-rod and oscillating lever, for the purpose of releasing a suspended weight by the movement of a gong-hammer, and "the trip-rod, oscillating lever, and suspended weight in combination with the hammer of a gong, for the purpose of operating mechanism distant from the gong." Held, that the claims of the reissue were fairly embraced in the claim of the original.

2. SAME-INFRINGEMENT.

Said patent is infringed by a device whose only difference from the patented machine is that its trip-rod receives the stroke of the hammer In its backward instead of its forward motion.

In Equity.

McDonald, Butler & Snov and Robert H. Parkinson, for complainant. Baker & Daniels, Horace B. Jones, and D. N. Taylor, for defendant.

GRESHAM, J. The complainant, as assignee of reissued patent No. 6,831, brings this suit for an injunction and accounting against the city of Terre Haute. The inventor, Robert Bragg, filed his application for a patent June 16, 1873, and the patent was granted July 13, 1875. The application for a reissue was filed October 9, 1875, and the reissue was granted January 4, 1876. The reissue, like the original, covers a combination with a fire-alarm gong of mechanism which operates automatically, and releases the horses from their stalls simultaneously with the alarm. The device is so arranged that the blow of the gong-hammer, announcing the alarm, also and at the same time trips the liberating mechanism, opens the stall-doors, and allows the trained horses to spring to the pole of the engine before the striking of the signal is completed. This was a great improvement on the old method of releasing the horses by hand, and leading them to the pole, and, since its introduction, engines can and do reach fires more quickly. "The object of my invention," says the specification, "is to provide a novel attachment for gongs, and it is principally valuable and applicable to fire-engine houses, where the horses which draw the engines ought to be released at the very instant of the first stroke of the alarm, so that they can take their places at the engine and hose-carriage, ready to be attached thereto by the first man who may arrive. My invention consists in the employment of an arm which is so situated that at the first stroke of the hammer upon the gong it will also strike this arm, which has attached to it any suitable mechanism, so that the force of the blow will release, through this mechanism, a weight. The falling of this weight will pull a rope which is connected with the mechanism to be operated in such a manner that the pull upon it will operate the mechanism. The operation will be as follows: The gong-hammer, upon its first stroke, will strike the pad, E, and thus force the rod, D, and the arm, or lever, C, back until the roller, G, is released from the recess, F. * * * Various mechanical devices may be substituted for those herein described, as will be readily seen; but the principal point of novelty is the operating of these devices directly from the gong-hammer." Bragg did not limit himself to the precise mechanism described in his specifications and illustrated in his drawings. He had in mind that mechanism and its equivalents, -any suitable means for utilizing the force of the gong-hammer in releasing a weight (which is the equivalent of a spring) for operating any distant mechanism simultaneously with the stroke of the hammer. The claims of the reissue, which are involved in this suit, (the first and fourth,) read:

* * *

"(1) The trip-rod, D, arranged as described, and the oscillating lever, C, for the purpose of releasing a suspended weight by the movement of a gong-hammer, substantially as and for the purpose described."

"(4) The trip-rod, D, oscillating lever, C, and suspended weight, B, in combination with the hammer of a gong, for the purpose of operating mechanism distant from the gong, substantially as above described."

The claims in the original read:

"(1) The rod with its knob, E, and the oscillating lever, C, for the purpose of releasing a suspended weight by the direct action of a gong-hammer, substantially as and for the purpose herein described.

"(2) In combination with rod, D, and the recessed oscillating lever, C, pivoted as described, the weight, B, and its roller, G, for the purpose of relieving friction and removing the rod, D, from the action of the gong-hammer, substantially as herein described.

"(3) In combination with the weight, B, caused to fall, as shown, the bellcrank lever, I, cord, K, and lever, L, for releasing the slide, O, and weight, R, and thus releasing the horses by means of the cord, T, substantially as herein described."

The specifications in both patents describe the same invention. The defendant's expert found no invention referred to in either the description or the claims of the reissure not described in the original as instrumental in carrying out the object of the invention. He thought, however, that the claims of the reissue, without covering any new invention, allowed greater freedom in construction than did the claims of the original. "The rod with its knob, E," one of the elements of the combination in the first original claim, is described in the corresponding claim in the reissue as "the rod, D, arranged as described," the "knob, E," being omitted. In the reissue the rod projects in the path of the hammer, as it did in the original, and operates precisely as it did before. The claims in the original covered any rod extending within the sweep of the gonghammer, so that, when struck, it would perform the function of tripping, as described. The knob at the end of the rod performed no function independent of the rod, and it was not an operating element in the combination. The original specification showed that the action of the gonghammer upon the suspended weight was not immediate, or direct, but through intermediate elements, and, literally construed, the claims were not for the invention described, and, while the first claim in the reissue is more accurate, it is still limited to the combination which constitutes the invention,-"a combination of elements, operating substantially as and for the purpose described." Obviously the patentee feared that the original first claim might be held too broad or general, and for that reason he desired the fourth claim, covering a subdivision of the invention. This claim was fairly embraced in the original first claim. It is more limited than that claim, but it is clearly within the original statement of invention. The reissue contains no claim which might not have been made and allowed upon the original record. The real invention consisted in the combination of the designated elements acting in co-operation to accomplish a specified result, and the patentee was not limited to the precise forms of the elements shown in the drawings. Elements possessing the essential qualities and performing the same functions as those described in the specifications, and illustrated in the drawings, although differing in mere mechanical construction or form, were covered by the original patent. A combination patent cannot be evaded by a mere formal variation of all or part of the elements. Even if the claims of the reissue be construed as broader than the original