Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

⚫352

feiture was the fact, which was found by the court, that the corporation had charged illegal rates for the water it furnished, and the right to declare such forfeiture, because of a violation by defendant of the conditions of its charter, was implied in the very grant of the charter itself. The claim therefore that the forfeiture was a violation of the charter, and of the contract therein contained, and was on that account a taking of defendant's property without due process of law, or that the state by such judgment had denied to defendant the equal protection of the laws, cannot obtain. Whether defendant had so violated its charter was a fact to be decided by the state court. That court had full jurisdiction over the parties and the subject-matter, and its decision of the question was conclusive in this case so far as this court is concerned.

An examination of this question, among of the defendant in the usual manner perothers, was made by the state court after taining to courts of justice. The facts upon full hearing by all parties, and all that can which such forfeiture was based have been possibly be claimed on the part of the plain-judicially declared and found, and the detiff in error is that such court erroneously fendant has had full opportunity for its dedecided the law. That constitutes no Fed-fense upon such hearing. The cause of foreral question. As to the second question, there is no state statute subsequent in date to the charter of the water company under or by virtue of which this proceeding was commenced, or which in any way affects the contract of plaintiff in error. The joint resolution of the legislature of Louisiana referred the whole matter to the attorney general for him to bring suit to forfeit the charter or to take such action as he might think proper. It was a simple authority, if any were needed, to present the question to the court, and neither the contract nor any other rights of the parties were in anywise altered by such resolution. The proceeding herein is based solely upon an alleged violation of the terms of the charter by the corporation; that question has been judicially determined after a full investigation by the state courts, and in a proceeding to which the company Neither the legislative resolution, nor the was a party, and after a full hearing has action of the attorney general, nor that of been accorded it in such proceeding. This the supreme court of the state, nor all comwas due process of law, and no Federal ques- bined can as contended for by plaintiff in tion arises from the decision of the court. error, be in anywise regarded as the taking The same answer would seem to fit the by the state of property without due procother questions submitted by the plaintiff ess of law through the instrumentality of in error. They are all based upon the prop-its legislative, its executive, and its judiosition that the judicial determination of cial departments, either jointly or severally. these particular questions by the state tribunal was erroneous, and on account of such error the rights of the plaintiff in error, under the Federal Constitution, have been violated. But mere error in deciding questions of this nature furnishes no ground of jurisdiction for this court to review the judgments of a state court.

When analyzed, the whole claim is reduced to the assertion that in enforcing a condition which is impliedly a part of the charter, the state, through the regular administra tion of the law by its courts of justice, has by such courts erroneously construed its own laws. This court in such a case has no jurisdiction to review that determination.

The assumption that the state court has refused to apply to the contract herein set up the general provisions of the law of contracts prevailing in the state, and that therefore the state has taken through her judiciary the property of the plaintiff in error without due process of law,—is wholly without foundation. If it were otherwise, then any alleged error in the decision by a state court, in applying state law to the case in hand, resulting in a judgment against a party, could be reviewed in this court on a claim that on account of such error due process of law had not been given him. This cannot be maintained.

Assuming that there was a contract, as is claimed by the plaintiff in error, arising by virtue of the passage of the acts of 1877 and 1878, and their acceptance by the corporation, yet still the erroneous decision by the state court, admitting, arguendo, that it was erroneous, raises no Federal question. This court does not and cannot entertain jurisdiction to review the judgment of a state court, solely because that judgment impairs or fails to give effect to a contract. Curtis v. Whitney, 13 Wall. 68, 20 L. ed. 513, holds that a statute may even affect a prior contract without always impairing its obligation. The judgment must give effect to some subsequent state statute or That the bondholders were not made parstate Constitution, or, it may be added, ties is also a question which this court cansome ordinance of a municipal corporation not review. As is said in the Needles Case, passed by the authority of the state legis-113 U. S. 574, 28 L. ed. 1084, 5 Sup. Ct. lature, which impairs the obligation of a Rep. 681, the corporation, by the very terms contract, before the constitutional provision of its existence, is subject to a dissolution regarding the impairment of such contract comes into play. See authorities above cited.

at the suit of the state on account of any wilful violation of its charter, and the creditors of the corporation deal with it sub The state in this case has secured the ject to this power. They must accept the forfeiture of the charter of the defendant result of the decision of the state court. by means of a judicial decree obtained in Upon a careful review of all the quesa state court which had jurisdiction to give tions, we are of opinion that, within the the relief prayed for, and after a hearing 'authorities cited, the claim that any Fed

353

[blocks in formation]

1. A process patent is not anticipated by mechanism which might, with slight alterations, have been adapted to carry out that process, unless such use of it would have occurred to one whose duty it was to make practical use of the mechanism described. 2. The process claim of the Jones patent, No. 404,414, for mixing molten pig iron so as to secure greater uniformity in chemical composition and avoid the necessity of remelting before further treatment in converters, the dominant idea of which is the permanent retention in a large covered reservoir of so large a quantity of the molten metal as will absorb variations of the product from the blast furnaces received into it and discharged from it into the converters, was not anticlpated by prior patents or publications which contemplated the storage or mixture in reservoirs of molten metal from blast furnaces for use in casting or converters, in none of which was the retention of a quantity of the molten metal recognized as essential; or by the prac tice in steel works of mixing remelted pig Iron from cupola furnaces in receiving or res

8.

ervoir ladles in which a considerable residue was generally maintained.

Whether the process claim of the Jones patent, No. 404,414, for mixing molten metal, which, when read in connection with the specifications, clearly covered the product of blast furnaces, was intended to include the products of cupola furnaces as well, and is therefore invalid, need not be considered in a suit for infringement by the use of an apparatus for mixing molten metal taken from blast furnaces.

4. A construction of the claim of the Jones patent, No. 404,414, for a process of mixing molten pig metal, as covering a method for avoiding abrupt variations in its chemical constituents, preparatory to further treatment in converting it into steel, is not inconsistent with the specification of the patent that its primary object was to render the product of steel works uniform in chemical composition.

B. A disclaimer of statements in the specifications of a patent may be entered in a suit for its infringement, when such statements, If retained, might be construed as having the effect of illegally broadening the claim, and there is no purpose of thus obtaining the ben

efit of a reissue.

7.

S.

chemical composition, preparatory to further treatment, which specifies neither the size of the reservoir nor the amount of metal to be left therein, where the specifications call for a reservoir of any convenient size, "holding, say, 100 tons of metal," with the bottom of the discharge spout 2 feet above the bottom of the vessel in a 100-ton tank, "and more or less according to the capacity of the vessel," for the purpose of leaving a considerablequantity remaining and unpoured with which the fresh additions may mix.

Infringement of the process claim of the Jones patent, No. 404,414, for mixing molten pig iron, the dominant idea of which is the permanent retention in a large covered reservoir of so large a quantity of the molten metal as will absorb the variations of the product from the blast furnaces received into it and discharged from It into the converters, results from the use of a covered refractory lined and turtle-shaped tilting vessel of about 300 tons' capacity for receiving the molten metal from the blast furnaces and supplying the converters, in the practical operation of which, by not allowing the vessel to tilt beyond a certain point gauged by a chalk mark, there is habitually retained in such vessel about 175 tons of molten metal, notwithstanding a long prior use of an intermediateuncovered receiving ladle for cupola metal, which held considerably more than the amount of metal necessary to charge a converter.

Counsel who has entered into a stipulation of facts to save delay may, upon giving notice in sufficient time to prevent prejudice to the opposite party, repudiate any fact therein with respect to which the facts subsequently developed show that it was inadvertently signed.

[No. 17.]

Argued January 22, 23, 1901. Ordered for rcargument March 18, 1901. Reargued October 17, 18, 21, 1901. Decided May 5, 1902.

N WRIT of Certiorari to the United

O`States Circuit Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit to review a decree which reversed a decree of the Circuit Court in favor of plaintiff in a suit for the infringement of a patent, and remanded the cause to that court, with directions to dismiss the bill. Reversed.

See same case below, 37 C. C. A. 593, 96 Fed. 850.

Statement by Mr. Justice Brown:

cuit court for the western district of PennThis was a bill in equity filed in the cirsylvania by the Carnegie Steel Company against the Cambria Iron Company, for an injunction and the recovery of damages for the infringement of letters patent No. 404,414, issued June 4, 1889, to William R. Jones, of whom plaintiff was the assignee, for a "method of mixing molten pig metal." In his specification the patentee declares that the

6. The idea of the permanent retention in a reservoir of a large quantity of molten metal as a basis for unification of the product of "Primary object of my invention is tog blast furnaces received into it is sufficiently provide means for rendering the product of disclosed in the claim of the Jones patent, steel works uniform in chemical composiNo. 404,414, for a process of mixing moltention. In practice it is found that metal pig iron so as to secure greater uniformity in tapped from different blast furnaces is apt

[ocr errors]

ing in this way, not only is each charge for the refining furnace or converter homoge neous in itself, but, as it represents an average of a variety of uniform constituent parts, all the charges of the converter from time to time will be substantially uniform, and the products of all will be homogeneous."

to vary considerably in chemical composition, particularly in silicon and sulphur, and such lack of uniformity is observable in different portions of the same cast, and even in different portions of the same pig. The consequence of this tendency of the silicon and sulphur to segregate or form pockets in the crude metal is that the product of the refining process in the converters or otherwise in like manner lacks uniformity in these elements, and therefore-for example, by merely receiving in a often causes great inconvenience and loss, making it impossible to manufacture all the articles of a single order of homogeneous composition. Especially is this so in the process of refining crude iron taken from the smelting furnace and charged directly into the converter without remelting in a cupola, and, although such direct process possesses many economic advantages, it has on this account been little practised."

"To this end my invention may be practised with a variety of forms of apparatus, charging ladle a number of small portions of metal taken from several ladles or receiv ing vessels containing crude metal obtained at different times or from different furnaces, the mixing being performed merely by the act of pouring into the charging la dle, and other like means may be employed. (The clause in italics was subsequently disclaimed.) I prefer, however, to employ the apparatus shown in the accompanying drawings, and have made it the subject of

289,673, and, without intending to limit the invention to the use of that specific apparatus, I shall describe it particularly, so that others skilled in the art may intelligently employ the same."

"For the purpose of avoiding the practical evils above stated, I use in the refining a separate patent application, serial No. process a charge composed, not merely of metal taken at one time from the smelting furnace, but of a number of parts taken from different smelting furnaces, or from the same furnace at different casts, or at different periods of the same cast, and sub- "My invention is not limited to its use in ject the metal before its final refining to a connection with converters, since similar process of mixing, whereby its particles are advantages may be obtained by casting the diffused or mingled thoroughly among each metal from the mixing vessel into pigs for other, and the entire charge is practically use in converters, puddling furnaces, or for homogeneous in composition, representing any other uses to which pig iron may be in each part the average of the unequally put in the art." (This paragraph subsediffused and segregated elements of silicon quently disclaimed.) and sulphur originally contained in each of (The apparatus is represented by the the several parts or charges. By proceed-drawing here inserted.)

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

"Referring now to the drawings, 2 represents the reservoir before mentioned. It consists of a covered hollow vessel having an outer casing 3, of iron or steel, which is suitably braced and strengthened by interior beams and tie-rods, as shown in the

drawings. The whole exterior of the vessel is lined with fire brick or other refractory lining, which should be of sufficient thickness to retain the heat of the molten contents of the vessel and to prevent chilling thereof. The vessel is strongly braced and

406

405

[graphic]

*407

supported by braces and tie-rods, and may | in quality, mix together, and when the vesbe of any convenient size, holding, say, 100 sel has received a sufficient charge its contons of metal (more or less), and its shape tents constitute a homogeneous molten is preferably such as shown in the draw-mass, whose quality may not be precisely ings, being rectangular, or nearly so, in the same as that of any one of its constitucross section and an irregular trapezium in ent charges, but represents the average longitudinal section, one end being consid- quality of all the charges. If desired, the erably deeper than the other. At the top commingling of the contents may be aided of the deeper end, which I call the 'rear by agitation of the vessel on its trunnions, end, is a hopper 5, into which the molten so as to cause the stirring or shaking of its metal employed in charging the vessel is liquid contents. The mixing chamber being poured, and at the front end is a discharge deeper at its rear than at the front end, as spout 6, which is so located that the bottom before described, and its normal position, of the spout is some distance above the bot- when not discharging metal for the purpose tom of the vessel,-say 2 feet in a hundred- of casting, being with the bottom inclined ton tank, and more or less, according to the upward toward the front or discharging capacity of the vessel, the purpose of end, and the bottom of the spout being situwhich is that when the metal is poured out ate above the bottom of the vessel, at its of the spout a considerable quantity may forward end, it is adapted to receive and always be left remaining and unpoured, and hold a large quantity of molten metal withthat whenever the vessel is replenished out its surface rising high enough to enter there may already be contained in it a body the discharge spout.' of molten metal with which the fresh addition may mix. I thus secure, as much as possible, uniformity in the character of the metal which is fed to and discharged from the tank, and cause the fluctuations in quality of the successive tappings to be very gradual.”

"For convenient use of the apparatus I have found it best to so arrange it that it is adapted to receive its charges of metals from cars or bogies 7, which run on an elevated track at about the level of the normal position of the hopper 5, and to discharge its contents into similar cars or bogies 15 on a track below the spout 6. In order to facilitate the charging and discharging of the metal, the vessel is set on journals or bearings 8, which have their bearings in suitable pedestals 9, and its rear end is provided with depending rack bars 10, which are pivotally connected with the bottom of the mixing vessel 2, and are in gear with pinions 11, the shaft of which is connected by gearings 12 with the driving mechanism of a suitable engine. The pinions are held in gear with the rack bars by idler wheels or rollers 13. As the journals or bearings 8 are located on a transverse line somewhat in advance of the center of gravity of the vessel, it tends by its own weight to tilt backward into the position shown in Fig. 1, but may be restored to a level position by driving the pinions 11, and thus raising the rack bars 10 until the front part of the bottom of the vessel comes in contact with a rest or stop 14."

"The mode of operation of the apparatus is as follows: When the vessel is in the backwardly inclined position shown in Fig. 1, it is ready to receive a charge of metal from the car 7. Before introducing the first charge, however, the mixing vessels should be heated by internal combustion of coke or gas, and when the walls of the vessel are sufficiently hot to hold the molten metal without chilling it, it is charged repeatedly from the cars 7 with metal obtained either from a number of furnaces or at different times from a single furnace. The charges of metal introduced at different times into the vessel, though differing

"The discharge spout 6 is furnished with a movable cover operated by a weighted lever 16, which, when closed, serves to exclude the outside air and prevent a draft of air through the vessel and the consequent rapid cooling of the molten contents. If care is exercised in keeping the cover closed, the metal can be kept in a fluid condition for a long time, the heat being kept up by repeated fresh charges of molten metal, and, if necessary or found desirable, by burning gas introduced by a pipe or pipes into its interior."

*"After the vessel is properly charged, the metal is drawn off into the cars 15 from time to time, as it is needed, by opening the door or cover 16 of the spout 6 and driving the engine 12 so as to elevate the rear end of the vessel and tilt it forward, and thus to discharge any required amount of its contents in the manner before explained into the cars 15, which are transported to the converters, or the metal is cast into pigs or otherwise used. (Italics disclaimed.) The tilting of the vessel does not, however, drain off all the contents thereof, a portion being prevented from escaping by reason of the elevated position of the spout 6, and as the vessel is replenished from time to time each new charge mixes with parts of previous charges remaining in the vessel, by which means any sudden variations in the quality of the metal supplied to the converter is avoided. Instead of discharging the metal into the cars 12 and carrying it in the cars to the converters or casting house, the vessel 2 may be so situate relatively to the other parts of a furnace plant as to deliver its contents immediately to the converters or other place where it is to be utilized."

"I find it in practice very advantageous to employ two or more mixing vessels constructed substantially as I have described, and to draw a portion of each converter charge from each of the mixing vessels. My invention is, however, not limited to the employment of two or any specific number of such vessels."

"I shall now describe, briefly, other parts of the apparatus which are desirable and important in its practical use."

*408

$410

409

"At the top of the vessel 2 are manholes | of its grosser elements, intermediate in the 17 designed to permit of access to its inte- amount of its carbon between wrought and rior for the purpose of repairing or fixing cast-iron, and tempered to a hardness which the lining. These holes are provided with enables it to take a cutting edge, a toughsuitable covers 18 to exclude cold drafts of ness sufficient to bear a heavy strain, an air from entering the interior. There is al- elasticity which adapts it for springs and so a hole 19 at the rear end of the vessel other articles requiring resiliency, as well as near the top, through which a rabble may a susceptibility to polish, which makes it be inserted for the purpose of assisting or useful for ornamental and artistic purposes. accelerating the mixing of the molten metal, and at the other end, at the level of the bottom of the interior, there are holes 20 provided with suitable spouts to enable all the molten contents to be drawn off when it becomes necessary to do so. (See Fig. 3.) The holes 20 should be provided with suitable stoppers."

"I claim

"1. In the art of refining iron directly from the smelting furnace, the process of equalizing the chemical composition of the crude metal by thoroughly commingling or mixing together the liquid-metal charge and subsequently refining the mixed and equalized charge, substantially as and for the purposes described.

Pig iron, which was the original basis for the manufacture of all iron and steel, is made by the reduction of iron ore in large blast furnaces, which are filled with layers of ore, charcoal or coke, and flux. By the agency of this the iron is melted out and falls to the bottom of the furnaces, is drawn out through openings for that purpose into canals, and finally into molds, where it solidifies into what are termed pigs. Prior to the invention of Sir Henry Bessemer, steel was manufactured from a pig-iron base by a tedious and expensive process of refining in furnaces adapted to that purpose. The process was so costly that steel was little used except for cutlery and comparatively small arti"2. In the art of mixing molten metal to cles, and was practically unknown in the secure uniformity of the same in its con- construction of bridges, rails, buildings, and stituent parts preparatory to further treat-other structures where large quantities of ment, the process of introducing into a mix-iron were required. ing receptacle successive portions of molten In 1856 Bessemer discovered a process of metal ununiform in their nonmetallic constituents (sulphur, silicon, etc.) removing portions only of the composite molten contents of the receptacle without entirely draining or emptying the same, and succes sively replenishing the receptacle with fresh ununiform additions, substantially as and for the purposes described."

were

purifying iron without the use of fuel, by blowing air through a molten mass of pig iron placed in a refractory lined vessel called a converter, whereby the silicon, carbon, and other nonmetallic constituents consumed, and the iron thus fitted for immediate conversion into steel by recarbonization. The present process of recarbonization was a supplementary invention of Mushet, who accomplished it by the introduction of ferro-manganese, or spiegel-eisen, while the iron in a molten state was issuing from the converter, in which it had been Upon a hearing upon the pleadings and purified, and was thus converted into steel. proofs, the circuit court held with the The process of running molten metal from plaintiff, and found that the process was blast furnaces into pigs and remelting them patentable; that it was not anticipated; in cupola furnaces for use in a converter that it was of great utility and importance; was termed the indirect process, and was and that defendant had infringed the sec-generally used prior to the Jones invention. ond claim. 89 Fed. 721.

The answer set up the invalidity of the patent by reason of an insufficient specification, anticipation, want of novelty, and abandonment; and also denied infringe

ment.

case

A decree having been entered for an injunction and an account of profits and damages, in accordance with this opinion, the was carried to the court of appeals, which ordered the decree of the circuit court to be reversed, and the case remanded to that court with direction to dismiss the bill. 37 C. C. A. 593, 96 Fed. 850. Whereupon plaintiff applied for and was granted this writ of certiorari.

His process is thus described by Bessemer in his patent of 1869: "The most important of these operations consist in melting the pig metal, transferring it in the molten state to the converting vessel, blowing air through it, and converting it into a malleable metal, mixing the metal so converted with a certain quantity of fluid manganesian pig iron, pouring the mixed metals into a casting ladle, and running it from thence through a suitable valve into ingots or other molds, and the removal therefrom Messrs. Thomas W. Bakewell, Thom- of the ingots or other cast masses when soas B. Reed, Philander C. Knox, and Thom-lidified." This invention of Bessemer, simus B. Kerr for petitioner. ple as it appears, may be said not only to Messrs. James I. Kay, Francis T. have revolutionized the manufacture of Chambers, and Philip T. Dodge for re-steel, and to have introduced it into large spondent.

* Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the court:

Steel is a product, or, perhaps, more accurately, a species of iron, refined of some

constructions where it had never been seen before, but to have created for it uses to which ordinary iron had been but illy adapted.

While in the Bessemer specification of 1856 it is said "the iron to be used for the

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »