# Record and brief — William E. Clements, Appellant, vs. The Odorless Excavating Apparatus Company > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Aper_scotus_1883_136%3A0 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Record and brief - **Published:** January 1, 1883 ## Text JOG- CY / Supreme Court of the United States No. 136. OcroBER TERM, 1883. —— ie. -- a WILLIAM E. CLEMENTS, Appellant, 2S. THE ODORLESS EXCAVATING APPARATUS COMPANY. Brief for Appellant. Oe ee o--—-—- -- --—- -~ HECTOR T. FENTON, Counsel for Appellant. PHILADELPHIA: DUNLAP & CLARKE, PRINTERS, 55 NORTH SEVENTH STREET. 1885. oo @~ OUST tere RRO ery Om CRONE cet. mata — a SE OR ARRON Ale NR BNA PS Pe a SS LOB syste airere 16 operation of the parts would be produced by putting the tank on 2 separate carriage, or on a separate part of the same car- riage from the air-pump. ‘The result (¢. ¢., cleaning the well by drawing the material into an exhausted receiver by atmos- pheric pressure) is preciscly the same, and surely the invention does not consist in reducing the size of the tank to that of an ordinary cask or barrel. It would be unprofitable to turther elaborate this branch of the case, for it is clear that Bull’s invention did not consist in any kind of movable cask or independently movable cask, with any kind of vault connection, and combined with an air- pump and deodorizer, all these parts being very old, both sepa- rately and in combination, but does consist of a deodorizer and pump, combined with a special construction of recewver or cask, having the several attachments constituting its peculiarity, and designed to be lowered into and operated within the vault. Though the claim does not mention the check-valve, or the float-valve, or the suspending-shoulders, or the air-tube between the cask and pump, the words “substantially as described ”’ imply all these, and ‘‘ the Court will add to a claim all those parts which are essential to the operation of the elements named in the combination,’ Irwin vs. Dane, O. G., vol. 9, p. H42. This is the only construction to be given to it to save it, if not otherwise avoided by the inherent invalidity of the re- issue: otherwise it must fall before the overwhelming force of the prior references. The second claim of the reissue, (for the special construction of the receiving cask), is not in controversy; the bill does not charge infringement of that claim, and it is admitted in the proofs, that defendant does not infringe it. The third claim of the Reissued Patent remains to be brief- ly considered. It is for a sub-combination, and consists of two elements only, @ float valve, and @ portable night soil cask. It is proven and conceded that both elements are old, and also, 17 that both are old 2m combination, to close a water or steam - passage, but not to close an air passage. ‘This is a refined dis- tinction, without a substantial difference. If, as shown in the proofs, a float valve has been used with a cistern or hydrant to close a water passage, or to make a closer analogy, a float valve is applied to a boiler, to rise or fall on the water, and close or open a steam whistle, it does not require invention or constitute patentable difference, to substitute a cask for a boiler, a semi- fluid for a limpid fluid, or an air port for a steam port. The prior references, all clearly showing the substantial equivalent of this combination, it is not necessary to refer to at length. They consist of the patents of Heald, Patric, and Berryman, (record, pp. 207, 209, 215), and other references. From the consideration of these, it appears that a float valve per se, is old; that such valves applied to close enduction pipes, are old; for opening eduction steam pipes, are old; to stop discharge pipes, are old; and their use was in cisterns, in air compressing apparatus, in tanks, in hot wells, in steam boilers, to deal with | water, with steam, and to close all sorts of outlets and inlets. It is immaterial whether it be considered that this combination is anticipated, or that, in view of the state of the art, it in- volved no invention to apply it to shut off semi-fluids from an air opening in a night soil cask. Patentability is a question for the Court (Dunbar vs. Myers, 94 U.S. 197.) At the most it is the application of the old and well-known float valve to a new, but analagous use. 2. Tuer ORIGINAL AND THE RetIssueD PATENTS, AND A COMPARISON OF ONE WITH THE OTHER. The original patent was granted to Henry C. Bull, June 6, 1871. It passed to the appellee by assignment, dated October 4, 1875 (see record, page 236), who reissued it in the name of one of its officers, Lewis R. Keizer, on an application filed January 11, 1876, the Reissued Patent being dated February 29, 1876. The history of the patent is a curious one, as de- > 18 tailed in the testimony of Bull, examined by the appellant (pages 100 and 101 of record). The application and _ specifi- cation for the reissue were taken by Mr. Keizer, post haste, after he obtained title, late in the fall of 1875 (see record, page 101) to Mr. Bull, in New York, who, without reading them, signed and swore to the application, at the request of Mr. Keizer (record, page 101); and on this the reissue was ob- tained. A comparison of the original and reissue specifications discloses a very great abuse of the privilege of reissue. They differ materially in the statement of what the invention con- sists of, in the description of the drawings, in the description of the apparatus, in the description of the mode of operation, and in the claims (see pages 29 to 58 of this brief, where the two specifications are printed side by side, and their differences, in essential matters, noted by italicized letters). The extent of the identity of the invention in the Original and Reissued Patents is to be détermined from their face by a mere comparison, notwithstanding what was said in Batten vs. Taggart, 17 How., 74, and consistently with Bischoff vs. Wethered, 9 Wallace, 812, and according to the rule laid down in Seymour vs. Osborne, 11 Wallace, 545, and Powder Co. vs. Powder Works, 91 U. 8., 154; that is, if it appears.from the face of the instrument that extrinsic evidence is not needed to explain the terms of art, or to apply the description to the special matter, so that the Court is able from mere comparison to say what are the inventions described in each, and to affirm from such comparison that they are not the same, but different, then the question of identity of invention is matter of law for the Court. The original application was filed under the act of July &, 1870, which required a written description of the machine in full, clear, and exact terms, with distinct claims of the part, improvement, or combination claimed as new. The require- ments of the statute have been complied with. The Original Patent describes the alleged invention in full, concise, and AO HEE TS a 19 exact termis, with distinct claims; and there is no language of doubtful meaning, or incomprehensible in any part of it. No part of the description is defective or insufficient ; and.if there had been any error in the specification—which there was not— there is nothing in the record to show that the error arose from inadvertence, accident, or mistake. The requirements of the statute are essential, are intended to correct honest mistakes, and not to cover up subsequent inventions, and are not an- swered by the action of the Commissioner in granting the re- issue, but are subject to the inspection, consideration, and determination of the Court. Gill vs. Wells, 22 Wall, 1. Russell vs. Dodge, 93 U.S., 460, is authority for the propo- sition, and is so cited in Klein vs. Russell, 19 Wall., 48, that where the claim of a patent is valid, and the descriptive part of a specification is sufficient to support it, the patent cannot lawfully be reissued. That the original specification claimed fully all that Bull, the inventor, or his assignees, had any right to is clearly shown by the proofs and the testimony of Bull describing his inven- tion, on pages 99 and 100 of record; and that as appellant’s apparatus, shown in the Bradley, Frazier, and Bradley & Scharf Patents, (pp. 177, 180, 185 of record), had been in use some time prior to the application for reissue, and did not infringe the claims of the original, that the evident purpose and object of the surrender and reissue was to fraudulently enlarge the claims and alter the descriptive parts of the speci- fication, to include the appellant’s apparatus. This is indi- cated also by a few of the ambiguous words of the reissue, considered in connection with appellant’s apparatus, notably ‘tubular connection,’ instead of ‘‘funnel,’’ to cover the hose ; the patentee even going so far as to use the word ‘ flexible” before the word “tubular,” in the application as filed, which, however, was so bold an attempt to insert new matter that the 4p BN Le ene EI RO OI BE AO IEE ELE AEG IN EI CaS rN 20) Patent Office required him to erase the word, both from the description and the claim; again, in the words ‘ independ- ently movable receiving cask,’ as applied to the receiver ; these words being so indefinite that they could readily be con- strued to mean appellant’s receiver; also, the words ‘‘receiv- ing cask, having an induction passage or opening,’ instead of a receiver with an opening at its bottom, and provided with a check valve; which latter language would not answer (though the former might) as a description of appellant’s apparatus, which has no induction passage at the bottom nor any check valve. There is no suggestion or intimation in the original speci- fication that any less number of elements named in either of the two combination claims of that patent may be embraced in one or more sub-combinations, and such a suggesticn is es- sential to the validity of a reissue containing such sub-com- binations. Miller vs. Brass Co., 104 U. S., 350. The second claim of the Original Patent, which claim in- cluded the specially constructed vault A, as an clement of the combination, wholly disappears in the reissue, and the first claim of the original is expanded and enlarged into three sub- combination claims, the first of which, if appellee’s construc- tion is given to it, would be for a wholly different invention, and would be more appropriate in the Bradley, Scharf & Bradley, and Frazier Patents, and much more applicable to the devices found described therein, than in the Bull Reissue. ’ As respects ‘‘new matter’ in the reissue specification, pro- hibited by the statute; it was required by law as antecedent to the granting of a patent, that the inventor should furnish a model which shall exhibit the several parts of his invention, and having in this instance furnished a model of a vault and a cask, each of peculiar construction, and nothing else whatever, he is estopped upon reissue from describing his particular vault + ren nara 21 as any ordinary vault, his particular cask as any ordinary cask, his rigid funnel pipe as a tubular connection, and such ambig- uous and false description is new matter. Careful examination of the original specification, giving to ita broad and liberal construction, and taking into consideration every suggestion therein contained, in regard to the nature, ob- jects, and scope of the invention, fails to disclose a sufficient or satisfactory ground for the subsequent surrender and reissue. There was perfect accord between the description and claim ; the former stated clearly the devices, or peculiar combina- tions of them, which constitute the patentee’s improvement on former apparatus of the same character, or make it to differ from them; and the latter fully covered everything de- scribed, or suggested in the former, or shown in the drawings annexed thereto, or in the model filed with the application. The claim corresponded with the description, and the latter is as full, clear and exact, even more so, certainly made up of less ambiguous words and phrases than in the reissue. There is no error from ‘‘ inadvertence, accident or mistake.’’ Under such circumstances, a reissue will not be sustained that has been obtained for the mere purpose of sub-dividing, expanding and generalizing the claim so as to make it embrace an inven- tion not described and specified in the original. James vs. Campbell, 104 U. S.. 356. l This practice of expanding patents by reissue has been frequently of late condemned by this Court. Gill vs. Wells, 22 Wall., 1. Roberts vs. Royer, 91 U. 8., 150. Russell vs. Dodge, 95 U. 8., 460. Powder Co. vs. Powder Works 98 U. S., 138. Ball vs. Langles, 102 U. S., 128. Swain Turbine Co. vs. Ladd, 102 U. S., 408. - ra eo ELE ILS COON STEED EEE SR PRETAX eae peteibaediniendatediatereeaiesintene tee x ne RG eT = aha - — eee ween * . 3 ci eam ‘ 29 There can be no doubt that the first and third claims of the reissue are broader than any claims of the original patent. And it is not denied by the appellees that they intended there- by to cover the appellant’s apparatus ; indeed, such purpose is evident from the language of the amended specification. It is also evident that appellant's apparatus would not infringe either claim of the original patent. If the Court is satisfied of this, the reissue must fall. Wood Paper Patent, 25 Wall., 566. Johnson vs. R. KR. Co., 105 U. 8., 539. Moffit vs. Rogers, 106 U. 8., 425. Apart from the objections to the Reissued Patent, already stated, an equally serious objection arises from the laches of | e/ ~ the patentee, in applying for the reissue, even though he was otherwise entitled to have it in the form in which it now ap- pears. Nearly five years clapsed before this alleged defect be- came apparent, and does not ‘appear to have been suggested until the field of invention became occupied by numerous other parties, who took patents for their respective improvements. In James vs. Campbell, 104 U. 8, 356, it is said that a re- issue may be had, where the original claim does not fully assert and define a patentee’s right in the invention specified in the patent, only when speedy application is made for its correction, and before adverse rights have accrued. What constitutes unreasonable delay in any particular case, must depend upon the facts; and the delay permissible under some circumstances might not be so harshly criticised as in a ‘ase where, (as here), interfering interests arose in the meantime, and where the only substantial amendment intended was in the expansion of the claims. Such an alleged defect is perceptible at once on inspection of the Original Patent, and the patentee should be held to at least ordinary diligence in asking for cor- rection on such a ground. Miller vs. Brass Co., 104 U. 8., 550. Gage vs. Herring, 2 8. C. Rep., 824. pnomnpucatnitentaiitinns: 0° Cuntsarenmens ey ee t would be inequitable to sustain the claims of this reissue, even though the patentee was otherwise entitled to them, when the Original Patent did not even suggest the possibility of any of these sub-combinations forming any part of the invention, considering also, their exceedingly doubtful novelty, and that no claim was made to them until after a delay of five years, wholly unaccounted for, and that valuable improvements had heen made and patented in the meantime. Heald vs. Riee, 104 U.S., 7 Matthews vs. Machine Co., 105 U.S... 554. Bantz vs. Frantz, 105 U.S., 160. > Tend “>| . 3. Tne DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DEVICES USED BY THE APPELLANT AND THOSE DESCRIBED AND CLAIMED IN THE RetssueD PATENT, AS RESPECTS THE QUESTION OF INFRINGEMENT. It may be conceded that if the first and third claims (those in controversy) of the Reissued Patent should be construed literally, without restraining the generality of the same by a reference to the descriptive parts of the specification or to the Original Patent, the appellant's apparatus would, perhaps, fall within their terms; but the state of the art at the date of the Original Patent and the distinct limitation of the invention in that mstrument to a receiver of specific construe- tion, intended to operate in a particular way, in combination with elements necessary to make it operative, require that the claims of the Reissued Patent should be construed in aceord- ance wita such limitation in order to avoid the conelusion that it is for a different invention, or voil for want of novelty. It will be noticed that the first claim of the reissue omits both the check valve and the float valve as elements of the combination, and unless, in construing this claim the Court read into it by implication, all these parts which are essential to the operation of the elements named in the combination wits PEELE OR PRE es 24 (Irwin vs. Dane, 9 O. G., 642), it necessarily follows either that the claim is void as not being for an operative combina- tion, or that the claim does not apply to the cask and _ its appurtenances, constructed and to be operated as described in the patent (for if so constructed it could not be successfully (see Bull's testimony, page 99 operated without both valves of record). The claim was levelled against the Bradley cask, which, from its construction can be operated without either valve, and im fact does use only one. The application for the Original Patent was sworn to in blank, and for the Reissue without reading the specification, so that the patentee, Bull, for the first time, when called as a wit- ness, stated under oath the nature and extent of his alleged invention. Ile said (page 9) that he desired to improve upon the Straus machine (see Straus Patent, page 204) which would not clean deep vaults, and to that end, instead of using the force pemp to draw up the material and force it into the re- ceiver, he constructed his apparatus in the manner shown in the drawings, for the purpose, as he says, ‘of following up the material after it was out of the reach of the Straus pump;”’ and this he accomplished ‘by lowering the barrel in the vault, so that the suction nozzle would enter the material.’ And the witness admitted that in the receiver to be so operated, he constructed it as shown in the drawings of the patent (and no other construction and operation is described in the specifica- tion); and to be so operated successfully 7t absolutely required hoth the check valve and the float valve; neither could be omitted; without either ‘it was not a practical thing,”’ as he testified, (page 100 of record—folio 173.) But this was a de- vice to be lowered into the vault, and having other appurten- ances to adapt it to that use. The appellant’s apparatus is not lowered into the vault, con- sequently is not of the special form shown in the Bull Patent ; has no induction-passage at its bottom, and consequently not needing and not having any check-valve. Tf there is any im- a a ~ . 5 provement in Bull over Walter and Cherrier, there is a vast improvement comparatively in Bradley, Scharf & Bradley, and Frazier, over Bull. !t is therefore easy to understand why these valves were omitted as elements of the combination claimed in the first claim of the reissue. The Bull apparatus as described, absolutely required both. The Bradley appara- tus does not absolutely require either: indeed, one cannot be used therewith, and the other is not essential. See Scharf apparatus, constructed without «either valve, page 177 of re- cord. But apart from this, no other cask but that shown in the drawing, is described in the specification, and no other operation is described than that of lowering the cask into the vault; consequently the claim is to be read as for a combina- tion including such a cask, and of course impliedly including all the parts of the elements necessary to make it operative, viz.: the two valves, Xc.; and as respects the *‘ tubular con- nection,’ these words, which mean the induction connection, should be construed to mean the thing shown and described, viz.: a neck and rigid funnel, not a flexible hose; and this, too, is plain, not only from what has been said, but from the action of the Patent Office in requiring the patentee to strike out the word * flextble,” before allowing the claim. (See pages 218 and 228 of the record.) Again, the appellee's expert, Mr. Renwick, admits, pp. 22 and 25 of record, that the second claim of the reissue is for the peculiarly constructed cask, with its appurtenances, as shown m the drawing; that appeliant’s apparatus does not infringe that claim; that the same cask therein claimed, is the cask of both the first and third claims; though seeing the danger of this last admission, he attempted to withdraw it when called in re- buttal (6th Interrog. p. 121 of record), but the force of the explanation is lost. in view of his answers to the 6th, Tth, 8th, and 9th cross-interrogatories, pp. 154 and 1535 of record. The only logical conelusion therefore, is, that as the ‘taccessories 0) appurtenances, (as Mr. Renwick calls them), of the Bull cask, 4 26 are absolutely essential to its proper construction and success- ful operation, (as the alleged invention is shown in the drawing and described in the specification), that the patentee invented nothing but a combination of a// these parts, all of which are conceded to be old, making up a complete apparatus: and that the first claim of the Original Patent—‘ The com- bination and arrangement of the funnel O, neck i, and valvi d with cask B, neck M, and float valve tf, substantially as shown and described,” fully covered: all the patentee invented: or was entitled to claim. If that is so, it fol- lows as of course, that the cask with its appurtenances con- stitute elements of each of the three claims of the Reissued Patent, and that the appellant's apparatus is not only thus ex- cluded from the operation of the second claim, as admitted, but is not included within either of the other two claims of that instrument. It was in the combination of parts making up the receiver cask, that the only novelty of the invention consisted, as clearly set forth in the first claim of the Original Patent: and the patentee cannot now abandon one or more of these parts of his combination, or prove it useless and unnecessary, and maintain his claim to the rest. Rowell vs. Lindsay, 6 Fed. Rep. 291. Corn Planter Patent, 23 Wall, 224. Water Meter Co. vs. Desper, 101 U. S. 337 This case is one where (as in Duff vs. Sterlnmg Pump Co., 2 8. C. Rep., 490), in view of the state of the art, the invention must be restricted to the special form and construc- tion of the cask and its appurtenances, as shown in the draw- ings and described in the specification, and, it might be added, as Claimed in the first claim of the Original Patent, by the patentee. Bull was not the first to make an odorless privy- cleaning apparatus, composed of pump, deodorizer, and re- ceiver, with necessary tubes and pipes. Ile merely devised a new form of receiver, and new only in the sense of its co- acting fixtures. + Railway Co. vs. Sayles, 97 U. S., 504. Subsequent patentees have adopted a different and improved construction and arrangement, and, under such circumstances, the appellee’s patent cannot have a meaning and scope given to the ambiguous words of its reissued clanns, that would em- brace all these subsequent improvements, including the appel- lant’s apparatus. Merrill vs. Yeomans, 94 U.S., 568: Keystone Bridge Co. vs. Phoenix tron Co., 95 U. S.; 274: Burns vs. Meyer, 100 U.S., 671. Upon the whole case as presented, the decree should be reversed. HECTOR T. FENTON, Counsel for Appellant. ORIGINAL PATENT. Specification forming part of Letters Patent, No. 115,565, dated June 6, 1871. I, Henry (. Bui, of New Orleans city, in the State of Lou- isiana, have invented certain Im- provements inApparatus forClean- ing Privies, of which the following is a specification : | Specifications issued Letters Patent REISSUED PATENT. forming part of Re- No. 6,962, dated Fehruary 29, 1876. 30 To all whom it may concern: Be it known that I Henry C. Butt, formerly of the City New Orleans in the State of Louisiana, now of Brooklyn, in the State of New York, have invented certain improvements in Apparatus for cleaning privies; and | do hereby declare that the following specifi- cation, taken in connection with the drawings furnished and form- ing a part of the same, is a true, clear and complete description thereof. Prior to my said improvement the contents of privy-vaulis and other similar receptacles, generally known as “night-soil,” have been trans- ferred to transit-tanks by means of dippers and buckets, or by means of one of three general modes of opera- tion, involving the use of mechanical contrivances. One of these methods involved the use of an endless chain with buckets attached thereto, oper- ated by means of a rag-wheel and crank, whereby the offensive matters were raised from the vault within a close-walled portable structure, and emptied from the bucket into a tubu- lar chute, at the discharge end of which the transit-tank was located. Communicating with the tubular | | a ; | 4 . et cont Ae ah et ma Al — prema, elem —eanes _ae > ‘ ORIGINAL. IY REISSUE. chute a deodorizer was arranged, for disinfecting the offensive JUSES evolved during the operation. Another method, known as the pumping and forcing system, tn- volves the employme nt of a foreing- engine, «a transit-tank, and a deo- dorize -. where by the contents of the vault are drawn by suetion to the plump, and forced therefrom into the transit-tank, from which the offensive GUses are conducted fo a deodorizer. Another method involves the em- ployment of apparatus operating under what is known as the “vaeuum syste m.’ and it ts to this systegn that WY improveme nts relate. So far as my knowledge extends, apparatus operating uuder the fore- ing and vacuum systems has hereto- fore embodied in all cases, large transit-tanks, which were mounted upon wheels, and this necessarily in- volves the use of a considerable length either of suction-hose alone, or, in addition thereto, of condueting-hose, because ine practice the heavy tanks and their carriages can seldom be located closely adjacent to the vault to be emptied, as it is well known that such vaults in erties are gen- erally hedged in by walls of build- ings and by fences, leaving but Little space around the vault for working operations; and although the me- chanical apparatus before referred to, consisting of the chain and buckets, was arranged to deliver the offensive matter into small casks, it was rendered practically worthless jor inoffensively operating tm close quarters by reason of. the bulk of the ORIGINAL. a ~ “Isr ws an eg _~ — 90 9] 92 93 94 Q5 ~ O6 97 QS 99 100 10] 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 REISSUE. ) apparatus, and the portable air-tight inclosing structure within which tut was necessarily mounted and oper- ated, By reason of my invention | am enabled under any and all cir- eumstances to transfer the contents 2 of privy-vaults to transit-tanks, re- gardless of limited space, because the several parts of my apparatus are readily adjustable and locatable in > relation with each other and to the vault to be emptied ; and any vault s having a passage way leading to it capable of receiving a barrel can be readily emptied of its contents with my improved apparatus without offense, even though it be necessary to carry the entire apparatus and the matter to be removed through « dwelling-house. It is well known that the power of atmospheric pressure cannot be re- lied upon for lifting fluid matters lying below a certain depth, and that friction of the matter within the suction- pipe lessons this capacity more or less; also, that the more solid matters the fluid contains the greater the friction. For these rea- sons the vacuum system, as hereto- fore practiced, -could seldom be relied upon for emptying a vault- well deeper than about fifteen or twenty feet. In some cities vault- wells have a depth of about forty 111 feet, and one olject of my invention 112 must be conveyed to a convenient is to empty, by the vacuum system, vaults so deep that they could not be emptied by that system as heretofore > practiced, It is well known, too, that heavy transit-tanks on wheels, when filled, 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 13] 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 15] 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 L160 ; 161 ORIGINAL. Deseription of the Accompanying Drawing. Figure | is a view in perspec- tive of the cask or package A, showing the methodof suspending and operating the same. Fig. 2 is a side elevation of the suction- Fig. 3 is a hig. 4 is a vertical transverse section of the pump and furnace. plan view of the vault. cask or receptacle shown in Fig. 1. My invention relates to an im- provement in devices for cleanings or emptying privy-vaults, where- bythe night-soil therein contained may be removed and utilize and the disagreeable odors arising therefrom prevented. It consists ofthe vault A, receptacles or casks B, and the suction-pump with fur- nace C, constructed and_ operated as shown and described. 128 129 150 13 132 133 15 > 149 150 151 152 158 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 16] REISSUE. place for discharge: if to the coun- try by the road, much time is con- sumed ; if toa dock, it is discharged In neither case can this valuable fer- in mass to the hold of a barge filizer be distributed conveniently in lots to suit to small farmers and on rai and gardeners regular water routes. One object of my invention is to entble the offensive matter to be of susceptible of being conveyed, in made an article trade and lots of any desired quantity by traveled routes and by the usual means of publie conveyance, without ereating offence. My invention consists, mainly, in asink-cleaning apparatus, con- sisting, of an air-pump, a deo- dorizer, and suitable tubular con- nections, in combination with an independent or movable receiving cask, having an induction passage or opening, and also an air-pas- for the air-pump, with connecting with sage and = provided stench and water tight covers hoth moveble cask may be located in any tor Passages, whereby the desired position with relation to the vault, and the air-pump and the deodorizer properly located with reference to the vault and cask, when and also whereby — the cask, filled, may be trundled on its bilge or end, after the usual manner of handling casks or barrels, My invention consists, further, in the combination with the cask a detachable suction pipe or funnel connected of a flanged opening, with the flange of the opening, 162 163 164 165 166 167 LGS 169 170 17] 172 io 174 lio 176 vai 178 179 1S0 IS] 182 183 184 IS) I86 1S7- ISS ISO 190 19] 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 ORIGINAL. A, a evlindrical privy-vault, constructed of metal or other suit- able water-tight material,and pro- vided with flange 6, which latter is designed as an auxiliary for holding it ina as also for vertical position, the neck «@ and the. cee onan CD AB AMER A DPN np ELEY A AS RAE Ro me en REISSUE. and a cheek-valve located within the cask for retaining the offen- sive matter after passing through the valve. My invention still farther con- sists in the combination with the air-passage of a night-soil cask, of a float valve, whereby, when the cask is filled with fluid matters, the floated closed, thereby tndicating thet the valve will be and cask is filled, and preventing the fluid conducting-pipe matter from entering the and passage through the atr-passage to the air-pump, which would otherwise its rendered he hable to have valves clogged thereby and inoperative. To more particularly describe my invention, I will refer to the accompanying drawings in which Kigure 1 represents, in- side view « cask embodying several feat- UPeSs Of “wi ieee ntion located within Fig. - 2. side view, an air-pump connected k by a flexible tube a privy, represents, In with the cas or suction-hose, and provided lig. » rep- Fig. 4. represents, on an enlarged scale with a deodorizer. resents, « privy-vault. and in detail, in vertical central section, the cas’: shown in Fig. 1. It is provided with the wsva/ entrance A vault is indieated at A. opening, as at a. B denotes one of several casks or recepta- cles which ere employed in con- nection with an air-pump, as at offensive C, for removing the ene > 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 99" ai aa b 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 2336 237 238 239 240 241 249 243 33 ORIGINAL. strengthening the same. B repre- sents one of several casks or re- ceptacles, which are employed as adjuncts of the suction-pump C) for removing the foecal matter from the vault. It has located at its lower extremity the funnel O, which fits, air-tight, upon the neck 7, and the valve d, which opens upwardly ; and at its apex the float-valve /f, is provided, which screws upon, or is other- wise caused to fit, air-tight, upon the neck M. The float-valve f, consists of the rod e, located ver- tically in the tube g, the said rod being guided by orifices, provided in transverse bars, in the upper and lower ends thereof. The lower part of the float valve is made of cork or other light ma- terial, in order that when the cask or receptacle becomes filled by the action of the suction-pump, it may press against the orifice of the tube, and thereby prevent the contents of the vault A, from overflowing or extending beyond the cask B. Ahk are shoulders, rigidly attached to the cask B, and are designed for clutching with the clamps L. V represents one of a series of caps, which are screwed upon the neck or necks of casks A, when filled by the action of the suction-pump. The method of operating my de- vice isas follows: After removing the seat or floor, the receptacle B, is suspended from a block and tackle over the opening, and the cask or receptaele A, is then low- ered into the vault, until the fun- | 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 24] 242 243 244 P45 246 247 REISSUE. matters from the vault. The cask B has at one end a screw- neck, i, and the check valve d, which opens inwardly. Said cask also has another screw-neck, as at M, to which is attached the suction-house, which communi- cates with the air-pump. At- tached to this neck is also a float-valve, as at f, which guards the entrance to the suction tube or hose. The spindle of the ralve f is provided, in a well- known manner, with guiding devices. The lower portion of the float-valve is provided with cork or other light material whereby, when the cask is filled with fluid matter, the valve will be floated and effectually close the entrance to the suction air- pipe, preventing the latter, as well as the pump, from being clogged by said matter. The cask is shown to be provided with shoulders hh, whereby the hoisting-clamps L may _ readily be made to engage with the cask. The induction-pipe O is secured to the proper serew-neck on the cask, and it constitutes a tubular conneec- tion with the cask, through which the offensive matter is conducted from the vault into the cask. In operation I proceed as fol- lows: After removing the seat or floor of a privy, uncovering the entrance to the vault, the cask B is suspended, by a bleck and tackle over the vault, connected by the suction-pipe to the air- 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 173 274 275 276 Ory madd 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 2R5 286 287 288 289 ORIGINAL. | nel QO, enters the fecal matter | about ten inches, whereupon, by : operating the suction-pump, the | receptacle or cask becomes filled 534 REISSUE. 248 249 the funnel-pipe connection pump, and then lowered until O 250 (which ts temporarily serewed to the 251 neck tof the cask) is at its lower with the foeces until it reachesthe | 252 end immersed in the contents to float-valve /, which pressesagainst | 253 be removed. The air is then and closes the orifice of the tube | 254 exhausted from the cask by leading tothe pump. The valve | 255 means of the pump, and deo- d, then falls, and prevents the es- | 256 dorized by the furnace on the cape of the contents of the cask. | 257 pump. The vacuum thus in- In the meantime the air that is | 258 duced causes the matter to be pumped out of the receptacle B, | 259 sucked through the funnel-pipe is forced into a furnace, located | 260 into the cask until the float-valve over the suction-pump, whereby | 261 is lifted and the air-passage the odor arising therefrom is de- | 262 closed. The pump is then stroyed. When one receptacle is | 263 stopped and the valve d closes. thus filled, the valve f,isremoved, | 264 The cask, being wholly free from and the cap V, screwed thereon, | 265 exterior contact with filth, is then whereupon the operation is re- | 266 /ifted, the funnel and suction pipe peated by the employment of | 267 removed, and the screw-caps V another cask, until the vault is | 268 applied to the necks 7 and M, emptied of its contents. 269 after which the cask is handled like | 270 any filled cask, and rolled on its 271 bilge or end. 272s [It will be seen that the cask, | 273 when thus constructed, may be | 274 lowered to any required depth in | 275 a vault, and filled by the vacuum | 276 system, regardless of the fact | 277 that atmospheric pressure as | 278 heretofore employed in this con- | 279 nection, could) only empty a | 280 vault to the depth of, sav, fifteen | 281 or twenty feet. | 282 In operation the pump may be | 283 placed closely adjacent to the door of 284 the privy, and the deodorizer serve to 285 « greater or lesser extent to disinfeet 286 the surrounding atmosphere, : 287 The operation of cransferring the 288 offensive matter to the cask is wholly 289 performed within or near the privy, rN Pi NP PE once eer seen etapa tera cemaeniflar sea _ eee ee a se MORITA Caen nen we tow ap mene Wem prereset ca ne ee nee et tt ht ACE OP LED PQ) 2] 292 295 294 295) POG 297 POS 299 300 30] HOr 505 504 505 506 5307 508 509 310 311 o12 315 314 S15 516 317 318 519 O20) 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 «> peru) QO RIG | N Al de 290° 291 AS bid om! a 293 294 295 296 297 298 2OY 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 508 309 321 322 6) oe 324 328 329 330 331 REISSUE. thus avoiding the objectionable pub- licity incident to the vacuum system (1s heretofore employed, When the vauts have been so far enuptied as to leave only the sedimentary deposits, the cask being located closely adjacent _ thereto, deposits are readily drawn into the cask, which it would be practially impossible to do if such vacuume-system apparatus as has heretofore been employed were vTe- lied Ol. This portion of the operation is rendered all the more practi- ‘able by reason of a large induc- tion passage to the cask, through which the heavy viscous matters may freely enter. In night-soil operations, wheth- er with the pumping and forcing or the vacuum apparatus, it fre- 2 quently oecurs, unavoidably, that air will freely enter the cask by way of its induction-aperture. When this occurs with a large cask on wheels, a large quantity of air is entered, which requires to be subsequently removed by the pump before operations may be continued. With the portable independent casks employed by me, a much less quantity of air is required under these circumstances to be removed from the casks. More- over, it is practicable to exhaust the air from small casks much more thoroughly than is possible from the huge tuns or tanks here- tofore employed with vacuum ap- paratus, as is illustrated in the ORIGINAL. se 536 337 308 339 540 341 ‘> +) tea 343 344 345 346 Claims. 347 348 =I claim— 1. The combination and ar- rangement of the funnel O, neck i, and valve d, with cask B, neck M, and float-valve /, substantially as shown and described. | 349 | 350 | —— 352 358 354 | 356 | 357 358 359 360 361 , 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 The combination and ar- rangement of the vault A, cask B, and suction-pump C, substan- tially in the manner and for the purpose described. 2. Se ne are enemas REISSUE. United States patent to Walter, dated May 6, 1862. The fertilizing material, being inclosed in casks of small size, ” «* ww a CO Ww -_ _— ) securely sealed, and having clean - * Geo exteriors, may be readily shipped by rail or steamer to various delivered at any without * «* aed and station to any practical possibility of cre- points, consumers, ating as much, or at least any more, offense than usually ac- companies the trade in well- known merchantable fertilizers. ' Having thus described my im- provements, I claim as new and of my own invention— a paratus consisting of an air- A privy-vault-cleaning ap- 350 35] 9 ov 303 354 or & oo” pump, a deodorizer, and suitable tubular connections, in combina- tion with an independently mov- able receiving-cask, having an induction passage or opening, and also an air-opening for con- nection with the air-pump, and provided with screw-necks at each opening, receiving sealing caps or covers, substanti- ally as described, whereby the movable cask may be located in any desired position with rela- tion to the vault and privy, and the pump and deodorizer located in any desired position with rela- tion to the vault, privy, and cask, and also whereby the casks, when filled, may be handled as is usual with filled casks, as set forth. ; 396 397 398 309 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 363 369 70 for ORIGINAL. 380) 381 B82 $383 In testimony of this, my appli- 384 cation for Letters Patent for an $85 Improvement in Apparatus for 5386 Cleaning Privy-vaults, I here- 387 unto subscribe my name. HENRY C. BULL. Witnesses : JoeL EK. CANNON, RoBeERT KING. 9 od ” syrr ey olin or” 374 on oie 3/6 oid +p" o> od Ss d86 S87 Witnesses: REIFSSUE. 2. The combination, with a portable cask, having an indue- tion-aperture at one end, of a check-valve, a screw-neck sur- rounding the aperture, a fun- nel-shaped pipe connected with the neck, and an air-eduction passage provided -with a screw- neck, substantially as described. «> 3. The combination, with a portable night-soil cask, of a float-valve located at the air-pas- sage, substantially as described, whereby the fluid matter is pre- vented from entering the air-pas- sage, and clogging the suction air-pipe and pump, as set forth. HENRY C. BULL. Wo. M. BENEDICT, EK H. BENEDICT. Supreme Court of the Elnited States WILLIAM E. CLEMENTS, APPELLANT, us. THE ODORLESS EXCAVATING APPARA- TUS COMPANY. No. 136. | Appeal from the Cirewit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland. se BRIEF AND ARGUMENT IN BEHALF OF APPEL- , LEES. BENJ. F. PRICE, Counsel for Appellees. Supreme Court of the Eluted States. WILLIAM E. CLEMENTS, Arrewnayr, US ° THE ODORLESS EXCAVATING APPARA- TUS COMPANY. ' No. 136. 3+ — | Appeal from the Cirewit Court of the United States ’ jor the District of Maryland. ——_---——_ --e-8 © --- ABSTRACT OF THE CASE. On the 6th day of June, 1871, Letters Patent of the United States were granted to Henry C. Bull, assignor of one-half his right to Joseph M. Lowenstein for an improve- ment in apparatuses for cleaning privies, and were numbered 115,565, a certified copy of these letters patent is filed in the case marked “ Complainants’ Exhibit, Bull Patent.” a The specification of this patent is printed in the record on | page 30 and 31, and the drawing accompanying the same appears in the record between pages 28 and 29. 2 This patent was re-issued to Louis R. Keizer, and the re-issue dated February 29th, 1876, No. 6962, a copy of which is inserted in the record beginning on page 32, and is marked Complainants’ Exhibit Re-issue. | By mesne assignments the Odorless Excavating Appa- ratus Company became the owners of these Letters Patent, and brought suit for infringement thereof against William E. Clements, the defendant below, and appellant in this Court. Prior to this suit the Appellees brought suit by bill in Equity in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland against Thomas Quillam, which case was decided by the late Judge Giles in favor of Complain- ants, the present Appellees, in which the validity of the patent was affirmed, and a decree for infringement passed by the Court. The Bill of Complaint in the present suit was filed in the Court below on the 17th day of November, 1877, by the Odorless Excavating Apparatus Company (Complainants) against the Appellant, alleging the ownership of said Let- ters Patent by the company, and setting out the assignments by which the title passed to it, alleging infringement by the Appellee of the Ist and 3rd claims of said letters patent, as follows: Ist. “A privy-vault cleaning apparatus consisting of an air-pump, a deodorizer, and suitable tubular connections, in combination with an independently-movable receiving-cask, having an induction passage or opening, and also an air- opening for receiving sealing caps or covers, substantially as described, whereby the movable cask may be located in any desired position with relation to the vault and privy, and the pump and deodorizer located in any desired position with relation to the vault, privy and cask, and also whereby the casks, when filled, may ve handled as is usual with filled casks, as set forth.’ 3d. “The combination with a portable night-soil cask, of a float-valve located at the air-passage, substantially as 3 described, whereby the fluid matter is prevented from enter- ing the air-passage, and clogging the suction air-pipe and pump as set forth.” The prayer of the Bill is for injunction, account of profits, damages and further relief. The defendant was duly summoned and appeared in Court by counsel on the 8th day of December, 1877, filed his’ answer. The answer denies that Bull was the inventor of the im- provement described and claimed in his letters patent, puts the complainant to the proof of the alleged assignments, alleges that the new letters patent are not for the same in- vention as the original, denies the utility of the invention— alleges that the defendant is using an apparatus constructed in accordance with letters patent granted to Samuel R. Scharf and Jerome Bradley, and sold to him by said Bradley, and that “said Bradley was then and is now a stockholder in the Complainant company and one of the Complainants in the suit,” and that the Defendant is licensee of said Bradley ; the answer avers that Bull was not the inventor of the improvement described in the letters patent and shown in the drawings, and avers that substantially the same subject-matter was before the alleged invention de- scribed in French letters patent to Francois Lesage, December 11th, 1855. Certificate of addition to same, May 7th, 1857. Louis Cherrier, December 27th, 1844. D. Courdier, May 22, 1860. And in the following Letters Patent of the United States. Joseph P. Walter, 1862. | Louis Straus, January 28th, 1868. Jno. 8. Patrick, re-issued April 11, 1865. Edwin Heald, August 21, 1866. Robert Berryman, July 28th, 1868. The answer further alleges that the invention was known and in public use, and further cites 2 This patent was re-issued to Louis R. Keizer, and the re-issue dated February 29th, 1876, No. 6962, a copy of which is inserted in the record beginning on page 32, and is marked Complainants’ Exhibit Re-issue. By mesne assignments the Odorless Excavating Appa- ratus Company became the owners of these Letters Patent, and brought suit for infringement thereof against William K. Clements, the defendant below, and appellant in this Court. Prior to this suit the Appellees brought suit by bill in Equity in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland against Thomas Quillam, which case was decided by the late Judge Giles in favor of Complain- ants, the present Appellees, in which the validity of the patent was affirmed, and a decree for infringement passed by the Court. The Bill of Complaint in the present suit was filed in the Court below on the 17th day of November, 1877, by the Odorless Excavating Apparatus Company (Complainants) against the Appellant, alleging the ownership of said Let- ters Patent by the company, and setting out the assignments by which the title passed to it, alleging infringement by the Appellee of the Ist and 3rd claims of said letters patent, as follows: ! Ist. “A privy-vault cleaning apparatus consisting of an air-pump, a deodorizer, and suitable tubular connections, in combination with an independently-movable receiving-cask, having an induction passage or opening, and also an air- opening for receiving sealing caps or covers, substantially as described, whereby the movable cask may be located in any desired position with relation to the vault and privy, and the pump and deodorizer located in any desired position with relation to the vault, privy and cask, and also whereby the casks, when filled, may be handled as is usual with filled casks, as set forth.” | 3d. “The combination with a portable night-soil cask, of a float-valve located at the air-passage, substantially as 3 described, whereby the fluid matter is prevented from enter- ing the air-passage, and clogging the suction air-pipe and pump as set forth.” The prayer of the Bill is for injunction, account of profits, damages and further relief. The defendant was duly summoned and appeared in Court by counsel on the 8th day of December, 1877, filed his answer. The answer denies that Bull was the inventor of the im- provement described and claimed in his letters patent, puts the complainant to the proof of the alleged assignments, alleges that the new letters. patent are not for the same in- vention as the original, denies the utility of the invention—- alleges that the defendant is using an apparatus constructed in accordance with letters patent granted to Samuel R. Scharf and Jerome Bradley, and sold to him by said Bradley, and that “said Bradley was then and is now a stockholder in the Complainant company and one of the Complainants in the suit,” and that the Defendant is licensee of said Bradley ; the answer avers that Bull was not the inventor of the improvement described in the letters patent and shown in the drawings, and avers that substantially the same subject-matter was before the alleged invention de- scribed in French letters patent to Francois Lesage, December 11th, 1855. Certificate of addition to same, May 7th, 1857. Louis Cherrier, December 27th, 1844. D. Courdier, May 22, 1860. And in the following Letters Patent of the United States. Joseph P. Walter, 1862. Louis Straus, January 28th, 1868. Jno. 8. Patrick, re-issued April 11, 1865. Edwin Heald, August 21, 1866. Robert Berryman, July 28th, 1868. The answer further alleges that the invention was known and in public use, and further cites 4 Vol. 12 Encyclopedia Britannica, 8th edition, p. 1753, Article Hydronamics. New American Cyclopedia, vol. 9, p. 406, Article Hy- draulic Rams. Lardner’s Lectures on Science, pp. 424-474, 504. A Treatise on the Steam Engine by John Benner, and plate III appended thereto. That the entire invention was in public use by Bull more than two years before his application for letters patent. The answer further charges that the 3rd claim is void for want of patentable novelty. On the 5th day of January, 1878, a general replication was filed; and examiner was appointed to take the testi- mony by agreement. _ The suit is brought to restrain the Defendant from using an apparatus known as the Bradléy apparatus, for which as the answer alleges letters patent were granted to Scharf and Bradley, the said Bradley being a stockholder in the Complainant company, and the said Defendant, Clements, being a licensee of said Bradley, and his agent for the sale of the apparatuses. : Models of these apparatuses are filed in evidence in the case, and admitted as substantially correct representations of the infringing devices by agreement filed in the cause, the mode of operation of these apparatuses is described in the testimony of James L. Murrill on pp. 19 and 20 of the record. | Testimony was taken by both sides in the case and argu- ment made before the Court below; that Court with both Judges concurring re-affirmed the validity of the patent, and declared the first and third claims thereof to be in- fringed by both of the forms of apparatus filed; this opinion is inserted in the record on pp. 265, 266, and was filed on the 8th day of September, 1879. In pursuance of the above opinion, a decree was passed, granting an injunction, and referring the case to a master to — e 5 take an account of profits and assess the damages therein. This decree was filed September 11th, 1879. Both parties appeared before the master, who, after hear- ing testimony, filed his report on the 19th day of June, 1850; this report is inserted in the record beginning on page 268. No exceptions having been filed to the above report, it was finally ratified and confirmed by the Court by order filed in the cause dated August 2nd, 1880; this order ap- pears in the record on p. 279. From which order this appeal was entered. Supreme Court of the Cited States. —— © > - WILLIAM E. CLEMENTS, APPELLANT, Vs, THE ODORLESS EXCAVATING APPARA- TUS COMPANY. oe --—- Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland. eee a ee BRIEF AND ARGUMENT IN BEHALF OF APPEL- LEES. The Odorless Excavating Apparatus Company, a corpora- tion chartered under the laws of the State of Maryland, ob- tained its charter (see pp. 27 and 28,) for the purpose of en- gaging in “the manufacture and sale of improved apparatus for emptying privy-vaults, sinks, cesspools, cellars, wells and excavations, &c., and also to work the improved apparatus either under their own supervision or in connection with indi- viduals or corporations, to sell rights, and license individuals or corporations to use said apparatus.”’ 3 ¥ : > 4 . & ‘ i | = 7 The certificate of incorporation is dated May 5th, 1874, and among the incorporators and directors to manage the company were Louis R. Keizer, William Painter, and Jerome Bradley—see p. 28. The patents belonging to Painter and Keizer were assigned to the company, and the Straus Patent was assigned to the company by Jerome Bradley, for which he received one-fourth of the capital stock of the company. This suit is brought to restrain the Defendant Clements, Bradley’s licensee and agent, from using the Bradley appa- ratus, an apparatus constructed as Clements claims in his answer, in accordance with letters patent granted to said Bradley and one Scharf on the 18th day of July, 1876, after repeated struggles in the Patent Office, in his effort to obtain what had been patented to Bull and re-issued to Louis R. Keizer some five months previously, and assigned by Louis R. Keizer to the company of which Bradley was an incorpor- ator and director on the 15th day of March, 1876, four months before the said Bradley and Scharf obtained the letters patent under which the Defendant claims to be working—as the dates may be important, we give them as disclosed by the record. Bull Patent; re-issued February 29, 1876; record p. 32. Same assigned to Complainant Company J/arch 15, 1876, record pp. 37 and 38. Bradley, (patent) assignor of one-fifth of his right to Samuel R. Scharf July 18th, 1876, record p.181. Whilst it is true that the models in the case exhibit some of the par- ties working under what is known as The Irazier Patent— that apparatus whilst being just as clear an infringement as the other, the inventor of it claims no arrangement of the parts of the whole machine, but confines his invention to a novel coupling and other parts connected with this novel coupling, and a peculiar construction of deodorizer. It will be seen by an examination of this Frazier Patent, that every claim contains this coupling as one feature in the com- bination of its elements except one, (the third) and that one is for a novel arrangement of deodorizer. (See record p. 186.) | 8 Another feature in the case is the fact that not one of the apparatuses is shown to have been used anywhere in the United States prior to the date of the re-issued patent of Bull, viz., February 29, 1876. Jerome Bradley himself, whose deposition is subscribed April 13th, 1878, says he had been engaged in the manufacture of them about five years ; but this is clearly not true, as he follows the statement im- mediately by saying he was manufacturing them under cer- tain patents, one to Scharf in 1875, and the other to himself in 1876. | If a single one of the Scharf apparatuses were in prac- tical use before the date of Complainants’ re-issued pat- ent, not a witness in the case has ever seen one. If a single apparatus built according to the method of Scharf’s 1875 patent is in existence at all, it is certain that none have ever been seen by any one. Neither Scharf himself nor any one else has been brought upon the stand to testify to any such thing. The Scharf Patent was intended to be used with and upon a wagon-body, the apparatus was all ar- ranged upon the wagon-body, he describes it all in his speci- fication. We will place in italics what he says of this wagon body. | ‘‘My apparatus is most conveniently used wpon a wagon drawn by one or more horses, the letter A denoting such wagon body. Upon the front end of this body is placed an air pump Bb, which is properly pivoted in a standard C. Upon the body A may be placed a sufficient number of proper tanks, vessels or receptacles,” ce. Upon an examination of the drawing, it will be seen that the end of the wagon body is built expressly with a quad- rangular well through which passes the pipe leading to the vault. ‘he whole apparatus denotes the use of the tank or barrel as the patentee describes it, to be used on a wagon body. Certainly no such apparatus as this is shown in the case to have been used anywhere, either then or since. His statement is clearly untrue also from the fact, that five years would have antedated all of the patents of this class 9 in the case except Bull’s, and would have antedated the for- mation of the Complainant Company of which he was a cor- porator ; at that time not only was this apparatus not in use, but no apparatus except Bull’s, of any description other than the old night carts with pick and shovel and bucket had been in use, or were known to any one beyond a few experiments. It is untrue also from the fact that he was engaged in his struggles with the Patent Office to obtain his patent from the summer of 1875, until it was granted in July, 1876, and not a single witness-has been put upon the stand who ever saw or ever heard of one prior to the date of the Complain- ant’s re-issued patent, viz., February 29, 1876. | It is also untrue from the fact that five years dating back- wardly from April 13th, 1878, would have made his own patent void as having been in public use and on sale more than two years before his application for letters patent, which was filed in the patent office, June 29th, 1875. The sales of these apparatuses in the cities mentioned by Bradley on p. 109, were all made after he had obtained his patent. One of his witnesses, William H. Boyle, who was his agent, as he says for awhile, visited a number of these cities ; his testimony is given on pp. 103 and 104 of the record, it was subscribed and sworn to on the same day on which Brad- ley deposes, viz.,on the 13th day of April, 1878, and in answer to the “2d Inter. Have you or not had any practical experience in the use of the apparatus of which Complainants’ Exhibit is a model; and if yea, for how long? “ Ans. I have, for about twelve months.”’ William E. Clements, the Defendant in this suit, testifies on pp. 116, 117, 118, of the record, swears on the 15th day of April, 1878. ‘2d Inter. Please state how long you have been engaged in the business of cleaning privies, and by what method or apparatus, if any ? “ Ans. Ihave been engaged in the business about six years both ways: the first way was the old cart system, up 9) rd 10 until the pump system commenced. I have operated with the pump for the last two years. In the cart system we used buckets and scoops. In the pump system I used Bradley’s apparatus. I am the Defendant in this suit. “3d Inter. When and from whom did you procure the Bradley apparatus which you have been using? ‘¢ 4ns. From Jerome Bradley, about two years ago.”’ We have placed the parts in italics, to which we wish to call the attention of the Court. This Defendant when examined again before the master on p. 271, of the record, declares that he got his apparatus in the latter part of 1877, he thinks they might have been in use by others before that about one year. He gives the only account of the date when these appa- ratuses were first introduced, to be found in the record—this witness and defendant, like many of the others, stated in his answer, that they had been using the apparatus since 1875—but when put to the proof of this allegation, they do not attempt to sustain it; the testimony of Clements on this point is given before the master, and is as follows, be- ginning on p. 273 of the record—parts of which we will place in italics. This witness had been first asked on p. 271: “14th Inter. When did you first obtain your pumping apparatus, and how long have you been working it? “‘ Ans. Some time in 1877, the latter part. Have been working it ever since, only when I was stopped at different times.” On p. 273. ‘‘A43rd Inter. I now call your attention to the 14th inter- rogatory and answer thereto, (the interrogatory and answer are read to witness, by the master.) Are you not mistaken— obtaining that apparatus in 1877; did you not obtain it be- fore that ? “ Ans. I think not, to the best of knowledge. “44th Inter. In your answer filed in this case you have sworn as follows: ‘This respondent is not engaged in the s a 11 manufacture or sale of anything whatever, but is licensed under proper authority of the City of Baltimore, State of Maryland, to clean privies, sinks, &c., and for this purpose has, since July, 1875, and now, made use of an apparatus constructed in accordance with letters patent No.1158743, granted toSamuel R. Scharf, and certain letters patent granted to Jerome Bradley and Samuel R. Scharf, No. 179993, which apparatus was manufactured by said Bradley and sold to him by said Bradley,’ etc. Does that answer correctly state the time when you commenced to use and continue to use the apparatus therein mentioned ? “Ans. I think not. I had no apparatus in 1875. I was in the night business, but Z did not use any apparatus, to the best of my knowledge. “45th Inter. Had you not received your apparatus from Jerome Bradley, and were you not. using it before vou sold the apparatus to others ? “ Ans. The apparatus had been sold by some one else, and now running, about a year before | commenced using or sell- ing them. I did not use the Bradley apparatus before I commenced selling it. “A6th Inter. You have testified that you sold certain apparatuses to different parties; did you sell these appa- ratuses to the parties aforesaid before you owned one or began to work the apparatus yourself ? ‘“ Ans. Yes; I sold these apparatuses before I owned one myself, but I worked with a man who owned one a year, or in that neighborhood, before I owned one myself. ‘‘atth Inter. Who was the man with whom you worked before you owned the apparatus ? “ Ans. Lewis Minks. “A8th Inter. Were you working with Minks as partner ? “ Ans. No, sir. ‘‘A9th Inter. Did you share with him the profits, losses, and expense of the business ? Ai Se ees ae 12 “Ans. No, sir; I had nothing to do with him ; my teams worked for him at wages. He was the first owner of a pump in Baltimore; he went to Philadelphia and got it a week or two weeks after he stopped the tanks. “50th Inter. How long were you selling Bradley appa- ratuses before you began to work the said apparatus on your own account ? “Ans. Imay have sold two or three before I began to work an apparatus on my own account. It might have been a month or two, or a little more. I can’t say, but to the best of my knowledge 1877 was the time I took hold of the sale, orused it. Bradley had three other men selling it before I took hold of it. . “S1st Inter. You have testified that you sold the apparatus to Ferdinand Drexler; are you aware that Drexler has sworn in his answer to the suit filed against him that he has been using his apparatus since June, 1875 ? “Ans. No; [am not aware what he swore to; if he did so swear I think he is mistaken, to the best of my know- ledge. “52nd Inter. You also swear that you sold it to Daniel Dougerty ; are you aware that Daniel Dougerty bas sworn that he has had his since 1875? | ‘Ans. I am not aware what he has sworn to, I have sworn that I did not have anything to do with them before 1877. If I did I am very much mistaken. ‘53rd Inter. Are you aware that Frederick Martz has sworn that he had his apparatus since April, 1876; John Kinstler, March, 1876, Thomas E. Nash, July, 1876; is it possible that all of these parties could be mistaken ; parties to whom you have sold the apparatuses ? “Ans. I don’t know what they have sworn; they might just as well be mistaken as [.”’ _It is true that the witness Wrightson says, he has been working with Mr. Frazier’s apparatus since July, 1875. He makes no effort to describe it, or to show how it was con- structed or whether it was the vacuum apparatus, or in any oe lp 13 way to designate it, no models were shown him. He was not a mechanic, and probably could not have explained it if he had been asked. The patent for the alleged infringe- ment of the Irazier apparatus, as shown by the models was granted Oct. 5th, 1875; his application for this apparatus was filed August 5th, 1875. It is hardly likely that he could have used an apparatus before the patent had been applied for, and if such an apparatus had been used, it is almost im- possible that none of these witnesses in the case had ever seen one at that time—besides it is well known that the spring and summer is the time when vault cleaning is done, if witness Wrightson had an apparatus of the Frazier pat- tern as filed in this case, he must have gotten it in July, 1876. So far as the Frazier apparatus is concerned, the patent for that apparatus was granted Oct. 5th, 1875. The Bull Patent was assigned to Louis R. Keizer, Presi- dent of the company, on the 24th of August, 1875, and as- signed by Louis R. Keizer, to the company, by assignment bearing date Oct. 4th, 1875, one day before the Frazier Pat- ent was granted. To the Odorless Excavating Apparatus Company is due, beyond doubt, the merit of having introduced a system into the United States, of cleaning wells without odor, to them alone should be given the credit of abolishing the old night cart system, and of giving to the public a method by which work could be done in day-light, and the foulest filth carried through the streets of the cities with nothing more disagree- able to the public than the passage of a sand cart—their sys- tem was immediately acknowledged. Boards of health, men of science throughout the country welcomed this system as a public boon—it was done at the cost of much labor and great expense, the highest premium was awarded to it by the American Institute of New York, in 1875, and the same award in 1876 by the United States Centennial Commission, this was upon their apparatus constructed under the forcing he ti oe 14 plan, (at that time the vacuum plan as represented by the apparatuses in this case were not known,) and the judges of that commission in awarding the premium, declare as fol- lows: “4. It being the original apparatus used in this country, and having inaugurated a reform in theremoval of night soil from privy vaults, &c., the sanitary advantages of which cannot be over-estimated.”’ The circular filed in the cause made a part of the record, beginning at p. 39, shows the character of the labor, and its success performed by this company at a time when not an- other apparatus for the purpose was in successful existence. The company was formedin 1874, among the directors and incorporators were Messrs. Keizer, Painter and Jerome Brad- ley—in pursuance of the purposes for which the company was formed, the Bull Patent was purchased Aug. 24th, 1875, by Louis R. Keizer, its president—it was assigned by Keizer to the company in October, 1875, assigned back to him in De- cember, 1875. Re-issued to him on the 29th of February, 1876, and assigned back to the company on the 15th of March, 1876. The original patent to Bull being granted June 6th, 1871, and the re-issue applied for January 11th, 1876, there was a period of four years and seven months between the date of the original patent and the application for the re-issue. On - the 18th day of July, 1876, eleven months after the Bull Pat- ent had been purchased by Mr. Keizer, the President of the company, eight months after the first assignment from Keizer to the company, five months after it was re-issued ; and four months after the re-issued patent had been assigned to the company, the Patent Office issued a patent to Jerome Brad- ley an incorporator and director of the company, one-fifth interest in which was assigned toSamuel Scharf, and at once the country became flooded with these apparatuses, under agencies appointed by Bradley throughout the United States, and this is the apparatus against which the company has in- oo TB 15 voked the aid of the Courts to protect them in its rights. This suit was brought, and Bradley appears on the witness stand to swear that he is interested in the suit, and has con- tributed money to aid the defence. See his testimony p. 110, of the record, Cross-lnterroga- tory 2. Upon an examination of the records in the Pateut Office, it was disclosed that for a full year Bradley had been engaged in a struggle with the examiners in the Patent Office, in his effort to obtain a patent, unknown of course to the company or its officers. What occurred at the Patent Office is best dis- closed by the file-wrapper and contents, of which a certified copy is filed and inserted in the record beginning at p. 243. We will place in italics, certain portions of this file-wrap- per, in order that the Court’s attention may be drawn to the parts we wish to emphasize. In considering this application of Bradley, it will be remembered that the Painter and Keizer Patents were the property of the company as well as the Bull. The specification begins on p. 244—on p. 245, he says: “A primary object of my invention is to obtain @ continuous vacuum as an emptying agent, by the employment of a double- acting air-pump in connection with a receiving barrel or tank, as a separate and independent part of the apparatus, and filled by a vault hose connection, whereby I not only obtain greater convenience in handling the barrel about the vault, but the more important advantage of filling the barrel as a sepa- rate thing by a continuous vacuum,” &c. On page 246 of the record, the file-wrapper and contents contains the following, which we will place side with the de- scription of the same thing in the original Bull Patent. BRADLEY. ‘It is of much importance during the operation of filling the barrel to determine when itis filled, and this I do by the combination with the ex- haust air-hose, and the barrel of a gauge valve; which auto- matically maintains an open position until it is automati- cally closed by acting as a float upon the surface of the mate- rial, as the barrel fills, so that the valve is closed the sroment the barrel is filled. “The effect and operation of the closing of this valve, is to instantly prevent the further working of the pump, by cut- ting off the passage of air through it, and hence there can be no overflow in the barrel.” 16 BULL. “The lower part of the float- valve is made of cork or other light material, in order that when the cask or receptacle becomes filled by the action of the suction pump, it may press against the ortfice of the tube and thereby prevent the contents of the vault A, from overflowing or extending be- wet ineomme * * * * * * by operating the suc- pump, the receptacle or cask becomes filled wntil it reaches the float-valve f, which presses against and closes the orifice of the tube leading to the pump.” On page 248, he says—“ To ascertain when it is filled, / have combined with the exhaust hose and. the barrel a gauge valve shown in the drawing as a puppet valve, but it may be of any construction and arrangement that will answer the purpose, is placed in the exhaust coupling, and made as light as possible either of wood or cork to float upon the surface of the matter as it rises in the barrel, and automatically close the opening in the exhaust pipe coupling Z, * * * * so that as the matter approaches the top of the barrel ¢¢ lifts the valve and closes the air exhaust passage, the effect of which ws to immediately stop the pump, and prevent the further work- ing of the apparatus.’ PP rnin eeenmrnenmretnes » 17 The above features he embodies in a series of eight claims, on page 249. | F’'rom the beginning to the end of the specification every page, every line, and we may say every word is erased. This application is followed by an Official Letter directed to Bradley to the care of his Attorneys, Johnson & Johnson; in which all of his claims are rejected, and he is told among other things that the first claim is rejected on ‘ Patent to Henry C. Bull, No. 115,565, June 6, 1871.. 2 . . The second, the third and the seventh claims, are also met by patent to Bull.” In reference to the 6th claim, he is told— ‘The only adaptation to. privy service is in placing the pump on a truck, which Painter and Keizer have done in their Pat- ent, No. 155,670, Oct. 6, 1874.’ On page 251, Messrs. Johnson & Johnson renew the ap- plication of Bradley, they say—-‘‘ Hrase claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8, and insert the following, viz:” then follow five claims, the same thing occurs with the amended specification and claims, every line is again erased, and in an official letter he is told, page 253, : | “The vault emptying pump is found inthe patent to Bull.” On page 254, Messrs. Johnson & Johnson, Attorneys, amend their application again, “‘ by erasing in the amend- ment filed July 19, 1875, claims 2, 3 and 5,” and instead thereof submit two other claims. The lines are drawn also across both of these claims. On page 255, another amended specification. On page 256, a letter rejecting claims 1 and 2. Bradley, as it appears on page 257, dispenses with Messrs. Johnson & Johnson. and is now represented by Geo. W. Dyer & Co., of Washington. This firm renew the application, and on page 258, they say— | “ BHrase the entire specification except the signatures and all of the amendments, and substitute the following: | Then follows a long description. On page 259 of this de- scription the following occurs: 3 18 “The barrels are provided with proper couplings for the hose, and when filled can be transported to any suitable place and emptied for use again, being provided for that purpose with suitable sealed openings in one end.”’ sg " a Add on page 260: “To ascertain when it is filled. I have combined with the . the exhaust hose and the barrel a gauge valveg * * * It is placed in the exhaust coupling, and is made as light as possible either of wood or cork, to float upon the surface of the matter as it rises in the barrel, and automatically close the open- ing inthe exhaust pipe coupling Z.” On same page the specification concludes with three claims, the lines are drawn around and about them, erasing the whole, on the margin in the manuscript copy, appears in lead pencil, opposite the first claim, the words ered and in the same margin, opposite the second claim, appear also Painter, PI Bull in lead pencil the words Bull. On page 261, another official letter, rejecting the two re- maining claims, and as to the first claim, they say—‘“ see Painter & Keizer’s pump for emptying cess-pools, No. 155,670, Oct. 6, 1874.” Referring to the second claim, they say— “Bull’s Patent, No. 115,565, June 6, 1871, answers the second claim,” p. 262. Sv that the record shows that of the first application, he is told that his first, second, third and seventh claims are met by the Bull Patent, and the sixth by the Painter and Keizer, which application he renews and starts out by eras- ing the first, second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth claims, and this amendment he is told again he is encroach- ing on Bull. He makes a third application with two claims, these are also rejected. He then employs other attorneys, who order the entire specification to be erased except the ’ 19 signatures, and submits again for a fourth time his applica- tion with three claims ; he erases the third of his own accord, the other two are rejected again ; on the first he is referred to the Painter & Keizer Pump, iad the second is rejected again on the Bull Patent. Three times he is told that he is attempting to claim in- ventions shown to be in the Bull Patent, and four times he renews his application in the vain endeavor each time to get a patent for something which Bull does not describe or show. In view of the proceedings in the Patent Office it cannot be said that the Complainant company were attempting to cover the invention of Scharf or of Bradley & Scharf, it is too clear for controversy that Bradley was attempting to obtain from the office a patent for that which he knew, as a corporator and director of the company, belonged to it, and to gather to himself the rewards of the time, labor and expenditures of the company. In the light of the above facts we respectfully ask the Court to construe the re-issued patent upon which this suit is brought, and if the Court find that Bull was clearly the inventor of the things claimed and was entitled to claim them as his invention in view of the state of the art, and the Court further find that the infringement was clear, we ask that the decree of the Court below be affirmed. The most casual glance at the Bull apparatus by one con- versant with the state of the art would show that its chief merit lay in— Ist. Its capacity to be used at any well of any depth; 7. e with the tank in the vault house, or down in the well, ac- cording as circumstances required. 2nd. The ease and facility with which it could be closed when filled so as to hold the contents and handled without trouble and without offensive odor. 3rd. Its capacity for ascertaining when the barrel was filled, so as to prevent the filth from entering the suction air-pipe and pump, to stop the flow of fecal matter when 20 there was sufficient in the barrel, and this no matter where or in what position the barrel was placed. 4th. Its simplicity and compactness. Sth. Its capacity to form and maintain a continuous vacuum. That these were the features which made the Bull appa- ratus a success, when Walter Cherrier and all other appa- ratuses of the vacuum system had failed, and that these features were inherent in the structure as clearly shown in the original patent, and indicated in the drawing and Patent Office model, as well as in the specification, it will be our duty now to show; that the specification was amended in order to make this more clear, and that as amended it contains no more than the patentee was entitled to we hope to be able to demonstrate. The cleaning of wells and sinks as introduced in this country by the Odorless Hxcavating Apparatus Company, the Complainant in this suit, consisted first of what is known as the forcing system; under this system the pump and pump only could be located near the privy and vault; the suction pipe leading from the pump was dropped into the well and the contents of the well were thus drawn into the pump, passed through the pump and by the pump piston were forced intoa large tank or tun. This tank or tun was placed wherever room could be found for it, in the street or alley nearest the premises; as the matter entered this tank and expelled the air whose place it supplied, the foul air passed through a deodorizer; this system is well illustrated by the apparatus shown in the wood-cut between pp. 44 and 45 of the record; this apparatus with the im- provement in pumps, valves, &c., as shown on p. 45, the inventions of Messrs. Painter & Keizer, was the first success- ful apparatus of the kind ever used in this country. To this class of apparatus, belong the Straus, Lesage, and Courdier, filed in evidence in this cause. The other great system is what is known as the vacuum system; this system comprises all of those apparatuses | | ; | | 21 which form a vacuum in the tank, in which the contents of the vault never enter the pump, which is used only for the purpose of creating a vacuum in the tank. The only two apparatus shown in the case belonging to this system are the Cherrier and the Walter, prior in date to the Bull patent. The Bull patent, however, and its infringe- ments, such as are shown in the Bradley and Frazier apparatuses, are those which are in use, as no machine con- structed like either the Walter or the Cherrier exhibits have been shown ever to have been in practical use anywhere. In order to show the merit of the Bull invention as illus- trated by the patented devices which preceded it, we will take those exhibits which are filed as affecting the validity of the first claim, and dispose of those of the forcing system in the order of their dates, first FRANCOIS LESAGE. The drawings of this apparatus are inserted in the record immediately before page 167, and the description in the- French language begins on p. 167 and ends on p. 175. This apparatus is one of those large tuns which cannot and never was intended to be brought at or near the vault, unless the vault to be cleaned was located in an open field. Certainly as these vaults are arranged in the cities and towns this large tun would have to remain in the street, and the contents of the vault passing through the pump are forced thereby to the tank. it is evident from a glance at the apparatus that no well of a greater depth than 25 feet could be emptied by this apparatus. The differences be- tween it and the Bull apparatus are so clearly pointed out and explained by Mr. Renwick, that we will quote his testi- mony thereon, to be found in the record on p. 125: “J have examined the drawings and descriptions of Les- age, and have compared them with the Bull apparatus, and I do not find described or represented in Lesage the appa- ratus described in the Bull Patent, and referred to in the first 22 claim thereof. The Lesage apparatus, in its various modifi- cations, works substantially in the same way. It does not use an air-pump for exhausting a receiver of any kind, so that the fecal matter shall flow into a receiver of this kind by means of atmospheric pressure, but on the contrary, uses what is commonly known asa lift and force-pump, for fore- ing the fecal matter into a large tun, supported on wheels, in which tun no vacuum ever exists. In the Lesage appa- ratus, the fecal matter all passes through the pump; in the Bull apparatus none of them pass through the pump. In the Bull apparatus the receiver must have a vacuum formed and maintained in it; in the Lesage apparatus a vacuum is never formed in the receiving-vessel. In the Bull apparatus the pump drives the foul air directly into the deodorizer, while in Lesage the foul air goes from the receiver into the deodorizer. In Bull the tubular. connection, through which matters are forced up by atmospheric pressure, is connected with the receiving vessel ; in Lesage the same pipe is con- nected with the pump. In Bull the pump hes between the receiving-cask and deodorizer, and is an air-pump pumping nothing but air or gas; in Lesage the pump lies between the privy-vault and the receiver, and pumps feecal matter through the pump. Now even under the supposition, that an air- pump and force and lift-pump are one and the same thing, (a supposition which is usually, if not always, incorrect,) and under the supposition, that the large tun on wheels is the same as the independently portable receiving-cask of the Bull Patent, the elements in Lesage are combined in an en- tirely different manner, and so as to act in a different way from the way they are combined and act in the Bull Patent. The Bull Patent. works on the vacuum system, as it is com- monly called, that is, by making a vacuum in the receiving- cask, and the Lesage apparatus works on what I call the fore- ing system, in which the faecal matter is forced by means of a pump into a receiver. — ‘16th Inter. Answer the last interrogatory in relation to the third claim of the Bull Re-issue ? ] | | f | { 23 “ Ans. The combination claimed in the third claim of the Bull Re-issue, does not exist in the Lesage description, be- cause neither the drawings nor descriptions of Lesage repre- sent or refer to any valve closed by a float, which is one of the elements in combination with other elements in the third claim of the Bull Patent.” Mr. Renwick is asked to compare the Courdier apparatus with the Bull Patent in the same way, which he does as fol- lows: “Ans. Ihave made the comparison and do not find in Exhibit ‘I’ of the Courdier descriptions and drawing, the combinations referred to in either the first or third claims of | the Bull Reissue. The Courdier apparatus is a forcing appa- ratus, having substantially the same elements as the Lesage, combined in the same way, and to produce the same effect, and all I have said as to the differences between Lesage and Bull may be said with regard to the differences between Courdier and Bull, the differences are the same in both cases. The Courdier apparatus has a float, which when the large tun is sufficiently full, rings a bell to notify the operator, but it has not a float actuating a valve, in combination with the air-pipe of an air-pump, and therefore does not exhibit the combination referred to in the third claim of the Bull Re-issue.”’ With Mr. Renwick’s testimony on the differences between the Straus and the Bull Patents, we will conclude our ex- amination of the force pump exhibits ; his testimony is given on pp. 127 and 128 of the record: ‘‘T have examined Defendant’s Exhibit K, and it does not describe or represent the combinations described in the Bull Patent, and referred to in the first and third claims thereof. The apparatus, described by Straus, consists of a peculiar kind of lift and force-pump, a receiving vessel, and a deodorizer. The pump is peculiar, in that it has its valves worked by cams or toes, instead of as usual, having these valves self- acting and open and shut by differences of pressure. The receiver, as I understand it, is to be air-tight, and constructed 24 in any suitable manner, and the deodorizer is an ordinary deodorizer. In the operation of the apparatus, the induc- tion-valve-chest of the pump is to be connected by means of a hose with the feecal matter in the vault; the eduction or delivery-valve-chest of the pump is connected by another hose with the receiving-tank, and this tank is connected by a third hose with the deodorizer. When the pump is put into operation, it will lift faecal matter from the vault, such matter passing through the pumps and through the valves thereof, and the pump will force this matter into the re- ceiver, which has a pane of glass inserted in it, so that a watcher may see when it is full. The gases arising from the feecal matter in the tank will pass through the third hose I spoke of, into the deodorizer, and be deodorized there. In this contrivance the pump acts as a lift and force-pump, and the fecal matters pass through it. In Bull’s apparatus the pump is an air-pump, and no fecal matter ever enters it. In Straus, the vacuum is never formed in the receiving-tank, and the fecal matter is forced into it, by pressure exerted by the piston of the pump. In Bull’scontrivance, a vacuum is formed and maintained in the receiving-vessel, and the fecal matter rises therein by what is commonly called suction. In Straus, commencing with the vault, the elements of the apparatus are arranged, as follows: First, suction-hose ; second, lift and force-pump; third, delivery-hose ; fourth, receiver; and fifth, deodorizer. In Bull, commencing with the same point, there is, first, suction-hose ; second, receiver ; third, air-hose leading to the air-pump; fourth, air-pump ; and fifth, deodorizer. It will therefore appear, even supnos- ing the elements the same, that they are not only arranged, but also combined in a different way from Bull, so as to work in a different manner; and I therefore do not find in this Straus Patent the combination referred to in the first claim of the Bull Re-issue. Straus does not describe in his patent any float-valve which will stop the flow of the fecal matter, but provides the receiving-tank with a glass window, in order to ascertain when it is full, and therefore does not ex- 25 hibit the invention referred to in the third claim of the Bull Re-issue.”’ It is plain from these illustrations that none of these ap- paratuses ever were intended to be used, and could not be used in the same way as the Bull apparatus; that they do not present any of the features which make the Bull apparatus valuable—none of them could be placed within the privy, the tanks could not be lowered or manipulated, and none of them could empty a deep well. We approach now the devices belonging to the vacuum system, and a short review of them will suffice to show the great merit of the Bull invention—and first THE CHERRIER., The drawings of this apparatus are inserted in the record, between pp. 188 and 189, and the description thereof begins on p. 187, and ends on p. 191. The description of this apparatus is given in full and elear terms by Mr. Renwick, beginning on p. 122 of this descrip- tion and comparison between it and the Bull Patent we will quote only his answer to /nfer. 14, beginning ou p. 128. “14th Inter. Referring to the 26th Interrogatory, on page 33 of the printed testimony, Mr. Dodge is asked, in relation to the Cherrier, what elements, if any, he finds therein, claimed in the first claim of Complainant's Exhibit Re-issue. I now ask you, if you find in sail Exhibit Cherrier, the same combinations as described in Complainant’s Exhibit Re-issue, and referred to in the first claim thereof, and give your reasons ? “Ans. I donot. One of the elements of the claim of the re-issue is the independently movable cask, which is so con- nected with the privy-vault and the air-pump, that the feecal matter may ascend directly into the movable cask in which it is carried away, and so that a vacuum may be formed and. kept up or maintained in this movable cask, while it is being filled, this maintaining of the vacuum 4 26 enabling the cask to. be filled full, instead of only being partially filled, like the upper recipient B of Cherrier. Now I do find in Cherrier an air-pump, which is one of the elements of the first claim of the Bull Re-issue, a receiving- cask, which is another of these elements, and a tubular con- nection, extending down into the vault, so that the fecal matter may rise into it, and I also find in Cherrier a deodorizer, arranged in relation to the pump substantially as it isin Bull. [do not find in the description or drawing of Cherrier, any hint or description, that the independently movable cask has two openings, nor screw-necks nor their equivalent on those openings, and J do not find that these elements of Cherrier are combined in the same way as they are in bull, or to operate in the same way, or without the aid of several other elements, not needed in the Bull combi- nation. In the first place, the pump is so combined with the independently movable cask in the Bull Patent, that a vacuum can be formed and maintained therein, and this is the cask in which the filth is carried away. Now the air- pump of Cherrier is not directly connected with this cask, as in Bull, norisiteven combined indirectly with it, through the medium of the recipients and spout, it being evident that the pump cannot be worked to any useful effect in Cherrier, while the cocks are open through which it is connected with this cask, and the Cherrier pump can never make or main- tain a vacuum in the cask, in which the filth is carried away. Second, in Cherrier the ascending pipe is never combined with the movable cask, as it is in Bull, so that the matter may ascend directly from the privy into the cask in which it is carried away, and never, in Cherrier, gets into that cask by being forced up by atmospheric pressure ; in Cherrier the matters run through a spout into this cask by gravity, and while it is so being filled, the ascending pipe is either entirely cut off from the cask by shutting the cocks, or if it be left open to the cask, it will let the matter fall in the ascending pipe while the cask is filling, instead of rising in that pipe while the cask is filling, as it does in Bull. If it See RN oN NEO MO a ee RIE AIG OO — 27 should be stated that the recipient B is the equivalent of the independently movable receiving-cask or portable night- soil cask of Bull, then I should state, that this recipient was not independently portable, was not intended and could not be used for carrying away the night soil received into it, and was not intended to be used as Ll have before stated, in such a manner, that a vacuum could be maintained while it was being filled; and further, that it has not any screw necks, or their equivalent, which are the very means by which the ask of Bull is capable of being made independently porta- ble, so that it will both receive the night-soil from the privy and permit of its transportation, after being disconnected from the tubular connection, by means of which it is put in connection with the fecal matter in the privy and with the air-pump. Without at present calling the attention of the Court to the differences between the testimony as to the mode in which this apparatus performs its function, we desire here to remark that at least the witnesses are agreed upon one thing, that is, that the apparatus in order to perform its functions requires all the parts above named, and could not work at all as constructed in the absence of any one of them; that is to say a rigid frame, three receiving tanks, five tubes, five cocks, all bolted rigidly together, are each and all necessary parts in. the combination which taken together, and with the pump deodorizer, and manometer make the apparatus com- plete, and none of these could be dispensed with. Upon this point we say-—whatever may be their differences on other points—Dodge, Renwick and Cherrier are all agreed, and were we to stop here and point out to the Court, that the Bull Re-issued Patent dispenses with twelve of these parts in the combination of the Cherrier, namely: one frame, two receiving casks, three tubes, five cocks and one mano- meter, it would require very little argument te show the difference, we mean the patentable difference between the two, and the real merit of Bull in perfecting his apparatus. — ana 28 e: The cross-examination of Mr. Renwick serves only the purpose of bringing out more clearly these differences. ( On p. 146 of the record he is interrogated as follows : “86th Cross-Inter, From your last answer I infer, that you consider that the Cherrier apparatus anticipates the é combination referred to in the first claim of the Bull Re-issue, so far as it is used merely for the purpose of filling the re- cipient or receiving-vessel. Is that so? ‘¢ 4ns. Your inference is incorrect, it is not so. “87th Cross-Inter. Why not? “Ans. Because the recipient of Cherrier is not indepen- dently portable, but is firmly connected to the pump, firmly bolted to the suction-pipe, firmly fastened to another recipient 9 and to a cast iron stand, and because it has no screw-necks, and because it is not a vessel in whicb the fecal matter can be carried away. “88h ( ross-Inter. Are those the only reasons? “Ans. Yes, all that I think of now.”’ We will conclude by quoting the testimony of Renwick —- on the WALTER PATENT. The drawings of this apparatus appears in the record in front of p. 204. The specification begins on p. 202. Mr. Renwick’s testimony which we quote is given on pp. 126 and 127 of the record. | “Ans. I am well acquainted with the Walter Patent Exhibit ‘J,’ and have again looked at it since the question was put. The Walter apparatus is a large tun mounted on wheels, and has firmly bolted to it two air-pumps, which are by means of proper pipes and passages so connected with the receiving-vessel or tun, that the operation of the pumps, iia during the dragging of the tun on its wheels, will create a vacuum in the receiving-tank ; in order that the pumps may perform this duty, they are furnished with levers, which are actuated by cams, keyed on the hind wheels or hind axles of 29 the running gear which supports the tun, the whole con- struction being such, that when the tun is drawn along with the various cocks and connections in their proper position, a vacuum will be formed in the tun. The operation of the contrivance is as follows: supposing the tun to be empty, it is to be drawn to the privy to be cleaned out, and while being so drawn, the pumps create a vacuum in the tun or receiver. When the apparatus is in place, a suction hose is to be attached to the tun at one end while the other end is to be dropped into the feecal matter in the vault. If the valve on the pipe to which the hose is attached be now opened, the fecal matter will rise into the tun, until the gas emanating therefrom destroys the vacuum in the tun; in this way the tun can be partially filled with feecal matter.. In this Walter apparatus, the air-pumps, as I before stated, are bolted fast to the tun or receiving-vessel, so that the latter is not independently movable, and+the pumps must be carried away with the receiving-tank whenever it is moved from the privy, which is not the case with the Bull appa- ratus; further, in this apparatus the vacuum cannot. be main- tained or kept up during the filling, and: consequently the tun can never be filled full, the contrary being the case in the operation of Bull’s combination; and lastly, the tun has no air opening, provided with a screw-neck, so that an air-. hose leading from an air-pump can be attached to and de- tached from the tun. Now even under the supposition, (which I believe to be incorrect,) that the large tun of Walter, with its rigidly attached running gear, 1s the same thing as the portable cask of Bull, it will appear that this tun has not one of the necessary appurtenances of the Bull cask, which is one of the elements of Bull’s first claim: second, that it is not an independently movable cask, but must, whenever it moves, carry the air-pumps along with it; and third, that the combination of the air-pump with the other part of the contrivances in Walter, is such, that a vacuum is not kept up or maintained in the tun, while it is being filled, in consequence whereof the tank is never filled 30 full: it is evident, therefore, that the combination described in the Walter Patent is different from that referred to in the first claim of the Bull Re-issue. As the Walter Patent does not describe any float-valve in combination with the pipe leading to the air-pump, (the fact being that such valve is entirely unnecessary in his apparatus,) the Walter Patent does not describe or refer to the elements making up the combination of the third claim of the Bull Re-issue.”’ It is plain that nothing contained in the above exhibits affects the rights of Bull or his assignees in as patentee and inventor of those features in his apparatus which give it its great value; the question is plainly put to Mr. Renwick, and we ask permission of the Court to introduce the question here, and his answer thereto, as a part of our argument In the case. The question and answer are contained on pp. 128 and 129 of the record : . 20th Inter. | now ask you the same question that was d by Defendant's counsel of Mr. Dodge, in the 36th in- terrogatory on page 38 of the printed testimony, as follows: In view of the Patents of Cherrier, Lesage, Courdier, Wal- ter and Straus, what restrictions, if any, should be placed upon the first claim of the Reissued Patent 6,962, (Com- plainant’s Exhibit Reissue) ?’’ Ans. None that I can see. The contrivances of Courdier, Straus and Lesage, although unlike in some points, all work without the aid of an air-pump, all work by the aid of a and lift-pump, all pass the fecal matter through the pump, all force this matter into the receiver, and never either make or maintain a vacuum in the receiver. They therefore all of them exhibit different combinations from that referred to in the first claim of the Bull Reissue. The apparatus of Walter does use an air-pump, and does make a vacuum in the receiving-tun, but it never main- ains that vacuum while the tun is being filled; and in the Walter apparatus the tun is not either independently mov- able or portable, because in Walter, the air-pumps are so - [ or — oo en oe eee 3 | secured to the tun, that neither can be moved without the other. In the Bull apparatus, the receiving-tank is inde- pendently movable and portable, and the pump is so com- bined with it, that the vacuum cannot only be formed in the receiving-tank, but can be maintained or kept up therein while it is being filled. If Bull’s apparatus were made to conform with Walter's, (leaving out the question of the portability of the receiving-vessel,) there would be in Buil’s apparatus a pump for every receiving-cask, and the casks could not be filled full. Bull’s contrivance, therefore, is economical as contrasted with Walter, in the fact, that it needs only one air-pump for several receiving-casks, and that the casks may be filled full; and further, in the fact, that the use of the portable cask enables work to be done by means of the Bull apparatus, which could not be well per- formed, if performed at all, by Walter's. I refer here to the capacity that the Bull receiving-cask has, in being placed close to or in the privy itself, while in many instances, the Walter must be kept at a great distance, thereby necessi- tating the use of long lengths of suction-hose, which are liable to leakage at the joints, and which moreover compels the fecal matter to move under considerable friction, thereby preventing the apparatus from emptying as deep a privy as it could empty, if the receiving-tank could be placed near the privy. Further, the Bull portable receiving vessel can be lowered down into the vault, so that a vault of any depth can be emptied. Now as Walter cannot keep up and maintain a vacuum, as he has no independently movable re- ceiving-tank, as he has no portable tank, which can be always brought close to, or, if necessary, lowered into the vault, it is my opinion, that the state of the art exhibited in the Walter Patent, does not limit the first claim of the Bull Reissue. ‘¢T have already referred very fully to the construction of the Cherrier apparatus. One great feature of the Bull ap- paratus is, that it forms and maintains a vacuum in the very cask in which the fecal matter is carried away. This ‘ye 32 fecal matter is carried away, being lently, but directly, through the hose, connected or privy and with the air-pump. Now in he cask in which the fecal matter is transported had a vacuum formed in it, and consequently vacnum maintained in it; and this receiving tly connected with the vault by a hose, nor onnected with it by a pipe or hose, in such cask would fill by suction as the Bull cask the eask of Cherrier combined with the air- r indirectly, in such manner that, asin Bull, form avacuum in the cask in which the neported In fact, in Cherrier the pump is not the cask at all, because the operation of the produce any effect upon the cavity of the apparatus, it is. true, has a cask, has an leodorizer, has a tube leading from the air- eiving vessel, other and different from the » connection between the pump and the ese elements are not combined in substan- manner in which they are combined in Bull, used at all without the aid of the two spher- passage bet ween them, the stop-cock in } spout, the stop-cock in the spout, and I do used practically without the use of the nction-pipe from the vault, and the air-cock inder the supposition, that the cask of w-neeks of the Bull Patent, and under supposition, that Cherrier’s apparatus ntially the same way as Bull’s, it would Bull combination dispenses with the two and the stop-cock of the Cherrier con- that the state of the art represented loes not limit the first claim of the is nndoubtedly limited by its own lan- :tien. in which a vacuum is formed in the is independently movable, and which 3 is the very cask used for carrying away the fecal matter, thereby dispensing with the use of a secondary cask, with the labor of filling it, and with the annoyance of slopping the filth, and escape of gas, while it is being filled through a spout. “21st Inter. I desire now to call your attention to the latter portion of Mr. Dodge’s answer to the 37th interrogatory, on page 39 of the testimony, as follows: ‘As I view this Bull Patent in the light of the state of the art, as shown by the several exhibits, the only thing which he invented was his peculiar receiving-tank, and the arrangement for letting it down into the vault.” Do you agree with Mr. Dodge in this view, and if not, why not ?” “Ans. I do not, and Ido not think that Bull limits him- self to any peculiar receiving-tank. It is called a cask, both in the original and in the reissue, and is not described as being made in any special way. Bull does describe special appurtenances or accessories to the cask, and the first claim is not limited by the state of the art, but by its own lan- guage, to a cask provided with two of these appurtenances, namely, the screw-necks. I have already gone over at length the exhibits referring to the state of the art, and have given my reasons why the state of the art does not limit the first claim, and do not think it necessary to repeat them. I will further state, that Bull did not invent a block and tackle, which Mr. Dodge seems to think is one of the. two things he did invent. I have known of a block and tackle with a cask slung on it, for more than fifty years.” We think then it is too plain for controversy, that the invention of Bull, as shown in his first claim is not limited by the state of the art as it existed at the date of his inven- tion. As with the first, so with the third claim, and without quoting all of the testimony in relation thereto, we will ask the Court to read it; that of Mr. Dodge on these exhibits begins at the bottom of p- 89, of the testimony, the cross- examination of Mr. Dodge begins on p. 92, of the record. v =* } s | L. La > : - i : ; > 7 |} > > fi, : > 34 Mr. Renwick, on the exhibits filed as second claim begins on p. 130, of the hem up in order, The Heald, Patrick, Enerclopedias and Perrigo. these exhibits a float valve com- issage leading to a pump for the pur- stent, and beyond a doubt Bull was most useful feature of the machine. ndant labored hard to show that there s arrangement of float valve of Bull; Renwick is asked as follows: tate of the art as it was in 1871, did the the third claim of the Bull Re-issue, the part of a mechanic of ordinary ranch of mechanics to which that com- In what particular was invention re- the idea that the flow of liquid stopped by shutting off the pipe, by was formed in the said vessel, at ¢ the flow of frecal matter into the itself: and second, in combining produce that effect. After I i| engineer, that my plan was . vessel, and prevent the liquid snd pump, by means of a float mouth of the pipe leading to the air- ilso, that I wanted the devices ractically fill the barrel full, a x i probably have devised the com- ut my plan, without the exer- experience with ordinary me- yne conid carry out the inven- 49 . ORO cmt om 49 5 Ss) tion, even after the idea had been explained to him. By ordinary mechanic, I mean, for instance, a plumber who was versed in the construction of ball-cock valves.” It cannot be denied that Mr. Bull was clearly the inventor of this most useful improvement. An improvement like the devices shown in the first claim, was not limited by anything shown by the state of the art. 3 If then the re-issued patent and its claims with the devices shown therein were novel, was it not clearly within his rights and the rights of his assignee to have his patent re-issued, in order that those rights might be clearly defined and pointed out. In the case of James vs. Campbell, 104 U. S. Rep., p. 371, the Court says: “ Of course, if by actual inadvertence, accident or mistake, innocently committed, the claim does not fully assert or de- fine the patentee’s right in the invention specified in the pat- ent, a speedy application for its correction, before adverse rights have accrued may be granted, as we have explained in the recent case of Miller vs. Brass Company,” (supra p. 350. ) And in the case of The Powder Company vs. Powder Works, 98 U.S. Rep., p. 137, this Court in: speaking of re-issues uses the following language: “The danger to be provided against was the temptation to amend a patent so as to cover improvements which might have come into use, or might have been invented by others after its issue.”’ | As these are the latest expressions of the Court, defining the law on the subject of re-issues, we have seen an award of the highest medal to this company by the Centennial Com- mission iz 1876, in which the judges declare of the Complain- ant’s apparatus under the forcing system, that it was the original apparatus introduced in this country—this apparatus was introduced by the Complainant's company, organized in 1874. At the time of this report in 1876, the forcing system stood alone without a competitor in the market,— Covel im original issued ri : ’ Tive tne way le princi vr and de- iS NOt a par- +i, ae Lie old —_ | i ned ifn the * * ; ry Ty its could , , > in thirty & ace | scenednnemieaeiepeense apparatus, its full capacity would be strongly tested in an effort to clean an ordinary vault to a greater depth than twelve feet below the surface of ifs contents. We are aware that the first claim of: this apparatus, was an arrangement “whereby vessel and pump are indepen- dently movable about the vault,” but it is perfectly apparent upon the most casual inspection of the drawing and descrip- tion of the original Bull Patent compared with the first claim of Scharf, that there is no difference whatever between the two apparatuses, except that he puts a flexible pipe from the barrel to the well, and puts the flexible pipe in the top of the barrel instead of in the bottom. Taking Bull’s apparatus as shown and described in his original patent, and place the tank on the seat in the vault- house with the funnel in the ordinary hole or opening in the seat, and a pipe either rigid or flexible extending down into the faecal matter, and it seems to us impossible to come to any conclusion than that they are identically the same appa- ratus, operated in the same way; and whatever differences there may be, is the work of a mechanic and not of an in- ventor. | Indeed, the expert for the defence, with every disposition to make a good case for his clients, virtually admits this in cross-examination, see p. 97 of the record, and was finally forced to declare that the substitution of a flexible hose for the funnel O in the Bull apparatus was not invention, he admits this in the following testimony on p. 98 of the record : “33d Cross-Inter. In case a tube, such as 1] have de- scribed, was used upon the receiving-cask, as shown in said original patent, could you not place the cask on the seat of a privy-vault, the tube passing through the hole, and extend- ing into the matter in the vault, and inthis way empty the vault of its contents, if it was not too deep, without the use ot a block and tackle ? ‘Ans. Yes, if the hole in the privy-seat were large enough to receive the tube with its funnel, but in such a WS Ti 4 ; ys 7% if > ° ; - ; a rac + \ » * _ ae. ion ' 3 ; ’ e : + * ad = - ‘ A . 1: Ww 4 * AT = - ; ii. aT . 5% * 7 tnh hk ~ § ty 7 + ugh, in the = OT would nit owered., 80 tc He rTe- this involve any ‘¢ would ma- ry “ised in a hed in the ich it did yey? . : me 1) aed. ot the answer to tube H lead- xh ihit { ‘her- (se. hoth and if so, the funnel ree? : > his speciiica- elaim he de- ’ ne ats material that shown W ith the the inven- air drawn 7 taken info a tank. deserip- passed eeribed Se oe Oo thence into an air-pump, and discharged through a deodorizer containing chlorine or chlorides substantially as’ described.” In the Bull original apparatus the process is fully de- scribed and shown, the noisome air first enters the tank, thence the air-pump, and is discharged through a deodorizer, con- taining a charcoal fire. For at least a hundred years, charcoal fires, and chemicals have been used as well known substitutes for each other in deodorizing—in the Walter apparatus filed in this case, the deodorizer there used is spoken of as acids or chemicals. How such claims as these could possibly have been granted to Scharf in the face of the patents filed in this cause is hard to understand ; and when the Court speaks of improvements which might have been invented by others, it meant invented, not merely patented, that it was speaking of meritorious in- ventors who had added some improvement to the art or pro- cess. It is evident, however, that this apparatus was not intended to be lowered into a vault to clean a deep well, from the fol- lowing clause in the specification. “Tn order to ascertain when the tank or - receptacle D is sufficiently filled, there may be placed in the head an ordi- nary float with its stem projecting through the head, or the ordinary mode of striking upon the tank from time to time may be used, in which mode the progress of filling may be deter- mined from the sound.” It is hardly necessary to state that the mode of striking on the tank could not be used if the tank were down in the well. Nor is there anything from the beginning to the end of the Scharf Patent which designates any method of closing or sealing the cask. The apparatus used as described upon a wagon-body, and without a method of sealing would not infringe Bull’s first claim-—-and where the mode of ascer- taining when the tank is full by striking upon it were used, without the valve, it would not infringe his third claim. He must go outside of the things which he supposes neces- sary to his invention before he infringes. ii) fore was not re-issued to catch Scharf. the float valve of the Bradley , r the method of closing the tanks | Schart model, before he can be ent lt may here be stated as dis- bradley and Scharf were placed in bo mt Cdtthies Bradley was the appli- was declared between the two, it was issued to Bradley. as- ssned to cover the-invention of Fra- -_—> l‘razier as shown by ms, consist of the features of his | odorizer, nothing of this kind is full Re-issued Patent. issued to eover the Scharf and tent as we have seen was not in months after the re-issue was granted. reissued patent was granted at ements had not come into use, nor nventions of others after its issue " , Court on the same grounds, and subject in Seymour and Oshorne and Brown and tled to the saving clause announced in mmpbell, where the claims of the original patent issert or define the patentee’s right in the in- , 7 is application for a re issue was made, ‘“ before lvers gehts had accrued.” ease has none of the obnoxious features, upon which thie ('onrt has passed its censure. like the ease of the Swain Turbine Co. vs. Ladd, «herein the patentee had claimed a specific device in a well- wn class of water wheels, and after waiting for twelve rs ssued it and claimed at entire water wheel. it has none of the features of the case of Johnson vs. The Flushing and North Side R. RP. Co., where the invention in riginal patent was for an “improved mode of fastening | : i e 4] sheet metal on roofs,” &c., when after waiting fifteen years, it yas reissued to capture, all the fish-plates on railroads which had come into general use in the meantime. It is clearly nothing like the case of Jliller vs. The Bridgeport Brass Co., where the patentee’s invention was a failure with the two domes without the chimney, as patented, waited for fifteen years to discover that the chimney with one dome was his invention, notwithstanding one object of his original inven- tion, was stated to be to dispense with the chimney. Nor is it like any of these later cases; it is the case of a meritorious invention reissued within a reasonable time, to cover only that which was substantially indicated and sug- gested in the original patent, to define more clearly the pat- entees rights, to embody them ina more perfect description, and claim, and this we understand the Court to declare may be done, in the case of Marsh vs. Seymour, decided in 1877— Ball vs. Langles, in 1880; The Swain Turbine Co. vs. Ladd, in the same year, J/iller vs. The Bridgeport Brass Co. and James vs. Campbell, in 1881. In a case like this we understand the law to be as defined by this Court, that a patentee may redescribe his invention and include in his specifications and claims, whatever was indicated or suggested in the specification, claims, drawings, or Patent Office model, which properly belonged to the in- vention as actually made and perfected, without new matter. Marsh vs. Seymour, 97 U.3S., p. 356. Ball vs. Langles. James vs. Campbell, 104 U.S., 371. Swain Turbine Co. vs. Ladd, 19 O. G., 62. The questions therefore which we wiil present tothe Court for consideration will be. Ist. Does the re-issued patent contain anything more that what was suggested, and fairly indicated in the original patent ? 2nd. Has any new matter been introduced ? As to the first question, we ask the Court to take the origt- nal patent and examine it. 6 42 The first thing which strikes the attention, is the fact stated that the invention relates to an improvement, whereby night soil may be “ removed and utilized.”’ He then proceeds to describe a vault to be cleaned. Then says, “/ represents one of several casks or receptacles for re- moving the fecal matter from the vault.’’ It has located at its lower extremity the funnel 0, which fits air-tight upon the neck, 7, and the valve d, which opens upwardly ; at its apex the float-valve f is provided, which screws upon or is otherwise caused to fit air-tight upon the neck 2.” * * * * * “The lower part of the foat- ralve is made of cork or other light material, in order that when the cask or receptacle becomes filled by the action of the suction-pump it may press against the orifice of the tube, and thereby prevent the contents of the vault 4 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Aper_scotus_1883_136%3A0. Public record. Not legal advice.