# Record and brief — William D. Andrews, George H. Andrews, Nelson W. Green and Noah J. Parsons, Appellants, vs. George Hovey > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Aper_scotus_1887_16%3A0 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Record and brief - **Published:** January 1, 1887 ## Text V OB 4. TRANSCRIPT AS STIPULATED. a et ee ee cope SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. OCTOBER TERM, 1587. No. 16. »~ ae oo eo Pie 3 WILLIAM D. ANDREWS, GEORGE H. ANDREWS, NELSON — W. GREEN ..ND NOAH J. PARSONS, APPELLANTS, ad Us, Se te “ GEORGE HOVEY. ee AO RgP em querngy , Me APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA. FILED OCTOBER 29, 1583. ® - of, CeCe sat S2-+ of ft ei = § SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. OCTOBER TERM, 1887. No. 16. WILLIAM D. ANDREWS, GEORGE H. ANDREWS, NELSON W. GREEN AND NOAH J. PARSONS, APPELLANTS, US. GEORGE HOVEY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA. INDEX. Original. Print. namesom tommitied in printing). i..0- 0. ~~~ sate sneee coos tan 1 ee MONI oo ores cc ee Se ene ink anes eed eemenenlell 3 Exhibit A—Decree in Andrews e¢ al. vs. Carman_-__- ---. ------ 29 B—Injunction against Theo. A. Carman...-. ..-- ---... 35 C—Decree in Andrews e¢ al. vs. Wright ..-- 38 D—Injunction against Geo. B. Wright -_-- 44 PODER BAG FOUITR 5 ois Ses sons sw ce eos soins 5 ais: Kone Seemed Amendment to bill Precipe for default (omitted in printing) ..-..----------. ------ wcciiiles Motior. and affidavit to set aside default (omitted in printing) . Order on motion to set aside default, &c. (omitted in printing). -_-.. se Motion for preliminary injunction (omitted in printing) PE Te ia aii vn A icon ake saison stairs cow toch ema Ske a acta 73 Replication — ..---- (cian inch alee aegetlanls lain wines aorta ae Order denying motion for injunction (omitted in printing) 112 Opinion on motion for preliminary injunction (omitted in printing)... 114 Order for continuance (omitted in printing)-.--..------.---.--.---. 118 Order granting leave to amend answer 120 Defendant’s cost bill on injunction (omitted in printing) 122 Motion for leave to amend answer 124 Amendments to answer-_~-_---. -----. 127 List of wells made by defendants._-----. -... ---. ------------------' 145 Notice as to proof of prior use -..__- -_-- 153 Notice as to testimony of Ross et al.__.---.---.--------.-~ ---.--— 156 Tl I Sallll eS Bowman JupDD & DETWEILER, PRINTERS, WASHINGTON, AuGusT 11, 1887. If INDEX. Motion to extend time to take testimony (omitted in printing) ---~~ i Affidavits in support of motion to extend time, &c. (omitted in printing) Defendant’s statement on application for time (omitted in printing) ~~ Order enlarging time to take testimony (omitted in printing) —------ Notice of motion for order to compel payment of costs (omitted in a ee ac cia eens clabielas Motion for costs on injunction (omitted in printing) Affidavit of Geo. Hovey (omitted in printing) — —~--- -.-. -----. ---- Order to tax costs, &c. (omitted in printing) -. .. .... .-.... ..... ....~- Motion to extend time to také testimony (omitted in printing) Affidavits on motion to extend time (omitted in printing Motion by defendant for postponement (omitted in printing) Affidavit on motion for postponement (omitted in printing) See UN COUT Oi a iis he eens omen ae Order extending time to take testimony, &e. (omitted in printing) ---- Motion to extend time to take testimony (omitted in printing) Affidavit of Jed Lake (omitted in printing) Order fixing time for hearing of motion to extend timé (omitted in a ie ci este: liv ahiaetenanieiw, Seon anal in de NN Affidavit on motion to extend time (omitted in printing) Order on motion to extend time (omitted in printing) -..-- -.----- ---- Affidavits on motion to extend time (omitted in printing) ~--.--. -.-- Motion to extend time to take testimony (omitted in printing) Affidavits on motion to extend time (omitted in printing) ----.------ Motions to suppress depositions (omitted in printing) --------------- Affidavits on motions to suppress (omitted in printing) ~-.------ .--- Order extending time to take testimony, &c. (omitted in printing) --- Complainants’ trial notice (omitted in printing) ‘Motion to set case for hearing (omitted in printing) Order as to additional security for costs, &e. (omitted in printing) --- Complainants’ trial notice (omitted in printing) Defendant’s trial notice (omitted in printing) -.---.------ ---...--.- Order setting cause for hearing (omitted in printing) Onder at to briefs (omitted in printing) ..... ...- 265 Looe os kee Motion for decrees in other eases, &c. (omitted in printing) Stipulations as to proofs in other cases, &c. (omitted in printing) Motion for security for costs, &c. (omitted in printing oie: Of PWAES BRING vn cei siten oie oka ween OG DIICG wc sek ans dibs ines hbin be ee nek Ses Dissenting opinion of Judge Nelson~ Ry OD ane ie cin hk nn Kein eno new a | BORER aRe ne OE BATT GION os sisi et adn Sc en be a ie Appeal Tn Citation a A I Or a Se OOS aaiicinis os Kt nti we re oes Ke el ee Caption to depositions (omitted in printing) Stipulation as to notary (omitted in printing) ---- Evidence for complainants bisa heonit ahaa. shai sc dk ie acaba Testimony of George Hovey - Bhs hs BROVOG ccc dcsn) sede oe - Anton BARON ii cw ec nk a a A. i. Trask... Original. 159 162 209 215 215 219 223 228 230 232 345 344 399 399 308 861 365 629 634 636 638 644 646 649 651 654 656 667 672 688 695 697 698 700 708 709 710 712 713 715 715 801 812 814 Print. INDEX. III Original. Print. Notary’s certificate (omitted in printing) — Testimony of D. W. Hovey 123 Notice to take testimony, &c. (omitted in printing) — I OE Fe a, FI ais chiki ith es tees ge ee ee 3 141 a io rie ti ancient aegis cence peel scene snes é 144 G. W. Brown 145 Notary’s certificate, &c. (omitted in printing) Testimony of Thomas Dobson Nate Stanton I a eileen eres epntinss sepwinrn, 1 ee eeeniorin oS ed co) - me DW CO | ° oe ~I Gt ~] sn Ce TAI alin cos ee aati i i emote me te accra Exhibit A—Reissue Letters Patent No. 4372 granted Nelson W. ei, Be Fre casein. acsaitk sie nies iach reese i 168 Exhibit B—Assignment from Nelson W. Green and Wm. D. Andrews & Bro. to Noah I. Parsons, Oct. 15, 1878 914 169 ey OE FO oa ie Silence esti th eile thn ith ns Sei 170 We Sy ia ia dik rns 440s Gino 932 175 Andrew Thompson -- 176 Bi pntiraee Seta xn so i cc eens oe pis 2 179 A. W. McClellan 182 186 TN TG | I iss cnn pi nse ceisincein seria einen Fn SET AO ME OL 962 190 EF BI iii ters ececnine shibiiciinn 193 SN Te IN sce 4m sie tin 96§ 195 ne nin isn, acenidiein eevee 197 I a 199 i. cake aaa uw epee nines 202 ee Ee ae EERE 205 i a en 206 990 209 992 eee I NE ook ie ge mee Menigalenn onal Notary’s certificate, &c. (omitted in printing) -.-. -.-------- .--- Testimony of H. C. Morehead 1003 210 J. M. May 1009 214 Notary’s certificate, &c. (omitted in printing) ---------.--....-. 1013 Exhibit A—Reissue Letter Patent No. 4572 granted Nelson W. TR, FP i RE a ee sneer agintnien een Exhibit B—Certificate of Patent Office ._.............-... ......' 10382 C—Assignment of Green et a/. to Parsons, Oct. 15, 1878. 103: D—Decree in Andrews e¢ al. vs, Carman ‘i 1042 E—Injunction against Carman -__--. -----. -----------. 1049 F—Decree in Andrews et a/. vs. Carman__-. ----.----. 1053 G—Decree in Andrews ef¢ al, vs. Wright-----.. ---...-. 1060 H-—Decree in Andrews e¢ al. vs. Wright._.. -.---..--.- 1067 I—Injunction against Wright ; 1072 J—Decree in Hines et al. vs. Wahl__- 1078 K—Opinion in Green vs. French ._....-. -.-. .--.---. 1085 Testimony of Wm. D. Andrews 1099 I cae silk “nilioesen arom oon thane Amides.) Rene Comat © Co. CRTOUIIT . 8c. cn. ene cevecsesssceense AUG Notary’s certificate, &c. (omitted in printed) ; 1148 Stipulation as to testimony (omitted in printing) ----.---------- 1151 INDEX. Testimony of John Q. Royce.... ..-- .--. ---- Notary’s certificate, &c. (omitted in printing) Zeatsmony of Charles Bron... u..onn oc settee see ses ie ere Notary’s certificate, &c. (omitted in printing) ~------ .----------- Testimony of Adelbert Brown... ..... ....... ..... -.--- ‘ Rene Wl , BUR icin ime is Rak aera dines peneny OE Tin: FE Tmt ais sk en tee Stewie eee GR es Si hd nd Ra OR i alee ee Ss i AE ilcniniintic sistas: decease tatealaila A cates eels onde Oe A I sick ees ied oe cineinl Ce Wm. O. Barnard. -.--- sieht Notary’s certificate, &c. (omitted in printing)-----. ---- -------- memteaneny Of J. OE. CON ona ons een ow on chs i Notary’s certificate, &c. (omitted in printing) --.--. -----. ------ Pans 0k Dei WEG aici, ccc ect ee sn Se peat Bhs We I ia te i Bs se No el ee cele i Fl i cia etek esp ible Menno Notary’s certificate, &c. (omitted in printing) -.-.-------- ---- ite NS OT FOR DARD ci. ccc sie necntneiekicxdeiainbcdianes Exhibit A—Newspaper articles_ .-- .-- ---- ---- sass Notary’s certificate, &c. (omitted in printing) -- Wacice eetreey Of Tmene is cisik eet oie sew RET FTIR on ins ee tieeriin eek pace ee econ Se Be, IOs iit nto teased een enslal capi Pe TROON i isccbcen eee a ni es es Notice to take testimony, &c. (omitted in printing) - INT OF DORR Tis TOO ~ wiineritntenst cic «min nao iel iaeaions ER I iin iinitees: sacks dive nletininh abit Mh ease Whee Exhibit H. W.—Letter of N. W. Green to H. Ward, January 3, ____ RCRA IO PORE MG MEN RSI ON ea) Ss AF TE NCR? IO Exhibit H. W., No. 2—Letter of Commissioner of Patents to H. Ward, March 9, 1866, &c. .... ........- IE OE ae NU Bh SR iia iis cao cciee wien cen ees ae Notary’s certificate, &c. (omitted in printing) ..-.-.------.. =e CRN OF ak CRN OD, TENOR aioe: ci sinaccenls nisin oka sentins OE Fe sind se eentin Sea tee ii CI Bc HIG cei since a Sets ons pied aie John Vandenburgh -_--_- sensi aides . WF 5 a IN cise neice os ei ucnicsh eskeni ladle Neliiassiaie CRRRG OU ER TOI isi ik sects tite aes Notary’s certificate, &c. (omitted in printing)---- .---. -.-.---- ES OT ONG FE. TEI oie neers deed ean ben ens NT I ain 5 oe isha ses Sian es ann eatin Notary’s certificate, &c. (omitted in printing) -----.-.---. .-.... Testimony of Matthias Vanhoesen-___...-_- siete aiiacan ialesboleseealaai aan ie RO I ee ia recited cacti ccs access She leo islestaeinan Gerrit S. Vanhoesen a nat John Vandenburgh--_-_- > See Th I ois hd ise nn Fay ii isk Mire Bib see edad scenes Notary’s certificate, &c. (omitted in printing Testimony of Nicholas B, Haynes: jin.5- 2c kk cide etidaice Original. 1153 1163 1168 1179 1196 1207 1217 1226 1238 1243 1250 1265 1271 1288 1296 1301 1506 1309 1313 1321 1324 33 1835 1348 1352 1356 1363 1569 1372 1376 1379 1388 1399 1434 1448 1462 1468 1475 1486 1496 1501 1523 1582 1542 1546 1549 1552 1556 1560 1569 Print. 258 262 269 275 281 284 292 294 298 304 315 318 320 $22 326 328 oO) vv 340 0435 346 549 Oe INDEX. V gk. Original. Print. Notary’s certificate, &c. (omitted in printing) ---. .------------ 1575 — antiniais aE Gitink PE goss St stew wth eee 1577 446 em: i, CI rile nerd eee cee hee ees ce TE 452 Mrs. Emma Share Aisi lak ins naisehislianiealion 464 ~~ e PN 5 INE tise ave etrse en cig Snsinsene shiner cic es orlnai anicie = 467 \ Notary’s certificate, &e. (omitted in printing) -----. .--- ---- ---- 1642 — NIE 0 NINE TRI niin ees ces eerierie oaninsin Sn ann SO 476 wa Notice to take testimony, &c. (omitted in printing) WwW - ------ 1719 — ae Tetmaons of Chester P. Burd ..... .... ...... -.~. .... —- sa ites 1722 524 y I ir aninined ssesecpeinr minced asi idicdnaaln plait 1749-89 ified ; Notice to take testimony, &c. (omitted in printing)._-.--- --.--. 1760 os Stra Testimony of Ambrose J. Armstrong - -.-. ..-. ...- WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 1 1-3 In the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa. In Equity. To the honorable the Judges of the circuit court of the United States for the eighth judicial circuit within and for the district of Lowa: William D. Andrews and George H. Andrews, doing business in the city of New York, in the State of New York ; Nelson W. Green, doing business in Springfield, in the State of Massachusetts, and Noah J. Parsons, residing and doing business in Cedar Rapids, in the State of Iowa, bring this their bill of complaint against George Hovey, residing in the county of Buchanan and in the district of lowa aforesaid ; and thereupon your orators complain and say, the said William D. Andrews and George H. Andrews and Noah. J. 4 Parsons, on information and belief— That said Green was the original and first inventor of a new and useful improvement in wells, fully described in the letters patent hereinafter mentioned, and which had not been known or used before his said invention, and which, at the time of his appli- cation for a patent, as hereinafter mentioned, had not been for more than two years in public use or on sale with his consent or allow- ance. And your orators,on information and belief, further show unto your honors that said Green, being so as aforesaid the first inventor and discoverer of said improvement, and being also a citizen of the United States, did, on the 14th day of January, 1868, upon due application therefor, obtain letters patent of the United States for said invention in due form of law, under the seal of-the Patent Office of the United States, signed by the Secretary of the Interior and countersigned by the Commissioner of Patents of the United States, bearing date the day and year last aforesaid, whereby there was granted and secured to said Green, his heirs, ad- ministrators, or assigns, or intended so to be, for the term of seven- teen years from and after the date of said letters patent, the full and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using, and vending to others to be used, the said invention and improvement as set forth in said letters patent, which are now remaining on record in the Patent Office of the United States, and by virtue whereof said Green became and was the sole owner of all the 6 rights and privileges granted and secured, or intended to be granted and secured, in and by said letters patent. And your orators further show unto your honors that said Green, having for good and lawful cause surrendered said letters patent to the Commissioner of Patents, and having made due application therefor, and having in all things complied with the acts of Con- gress in such case made and provided, did, on the 9th day of May, 1871, obtain new letters patent, being for the same invention, for the residue of said term, and which were marked “reissue No. 4372,” and were issued in due form of law, under the seal of the Patent Office of the United States, signed by the Secretary of the Interior 1—16 1 2 WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. and countersigned by the Commissioner of Patents, and bear- 7‘ ing date the day and year last aforesaid, as by the said last- mentioned letters patent or a duly authenticated copy thereof ready in court to be produced will more fully and at large appear. And your orators have ratified and adopted said reissue. And your orators further show unto your honors that by virtue of a certain mesne assignment duly executed the said Green did, on the 3d day of July, 1871, assign and transfer to your orators, Wil- liam D. Andrews and George H. Andrews, the undivided one-half of all his, the said Green’s, right, title, and interest in and to the said invention as secured to him by said letters patent, including certain rights which he had theretofore excepted and reserved to himself from sundry mesne assigninents by him to others before made, 8 which said instrument was duly recorded in the Patent Office of the United States,as by said instrument or a duly authen- ticated copy thereof and of the certificate of said recording thereto affixed ready in court to be produced will fully and at large appear. And your orators further show unto your honors that by virtue of a mesne assignment duly executed the said William D. Andrews and George H. Andrews, as the firm of William D. Andrews & Brother, and the said Green did, on the 15th day of October, 1878, assign and transfer to your orator, Noah J. Parsons, the undivided one-twentieth part of their right, title, and interest in and to the said invention as secured by said letters patent, including all 9 rovalties and damages which have previously accrued and re- main unpaid in and for the State of Iowa, excepting in the counties of Polk, Dallas, Iowa, Tama, Woodbury, Monona, Des Moines, and Cedar, and reserving the exclusive right to dispose of the same to the United States for military, naval, and cemetery pur- poses, Which said instrument was duly recorded in the Patent Office of the United States, as by said instrument or a duly authenticated copy thereof and of the certificate of said recording thereto affixed ready in court to be produced will fully and at large appear. And your orators further show unto yours honors that by virtue of the said letters patent issued to said Green as aforesaid and of the mesne assignments, as hereinbefore recited, and by virtue of other various mesne assignments by, to, and from the said Green 10 ~— and others duly made, executed, and recorded in the Patent Office of the United States, as by such instruments or duly authenticated copies thereof and of the certificate of such recording thereto affixed ready in court to be produced will duly and at large appear, your orators did by virtue of the premises become and now are the sole and exclusive owners of said letters patent and inven- tion, and of all the rights and privileges granted and secured, or intended to be granted and secured, thereby in and for the county of Buchanan and district of Iowa. And that since they became the owners thereof as aforesaid they have invested and expended large sums of money and have been to great troublein and about said invention and for the purpose of carry- ing on the business of constructing said wells and using the same 11 and making the same profitable to themselves and useful to Sn a he Re e WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 3 the public, and that said invention has been and is of great benefit and advantage, and that wells were constructed and made according to said invention and sold by said your orators to great advantage to the public, and that the public have generally ac- knowledged and acquiesced in the aforesaid rights of your orators; and your orators believe that they will realize and receive large gains and profits therefrom if infringements by said defendant and his confederates shall be prevented. And your orators further show unto your honors that your orators, in connection with Orlando Bennet and Platt Conklin, being ha owners of said reissue letters patent for the county of (Queens, 12 in the State of New York, did, in the month of April, 1872, file a bill in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of New York against Theodore A. Carman for in- fringement of said reissue letters patent, and praying for an injunc- tion and an account; that said Carman appeared in said suit and filed an answer denying infringement and setting up that your orator Green was not the first and original inventor of the invention patented by said reissue letters patent, and alleging that before the invention thereof by said Green the same had been known to and used by many persons in different parts of the United States, and had been described in patents and in many printed publica- 13 tions; that said Green had forfeited his right to a patent by said invention haying been in public use and on sale for more than two years before his application for letters patent there- for; that said Green had abandoned his invention and dedicated it to the public, and that said reissue letters patent were for an Inven- tion different fromm that described in said original letters patent, and were therefore null and void. That your orators filed a replication to said answer, and a very large amount of testimony was taken on both sides, the record on the part of your orators amounting to more than fourteen hundred printed pages, and that on the part of the defendant amounting to more than twelve hundred printed pages, the taking of said 14 testimony having been commenced in June, 1872, and con- cluded in November, 1873 That said testimony was taken at many different places, among them at Detroit, Mich.; Chicago, Il].; Amherst, Mass.; Middletown, Ct., and at many cities and vill: ages in the central and western parts of the State of New York, as well as in the city of New York, and witnesses were brought from several adjoining States and the Dis- trict of Columbia, and that the evidence comprises the testimony of about one hundred and seventy witnesses. That said suit was brought to a hearing on pleadings and proofs, and was elaborately argued by eminent counsel on both sides, 15 the arguments consuming many days in delivery; that said suit was taken under advisement by the court, which there- after rendered its decision, giving an elaborate opinion, overruling all the defendant’s defenses, holding said reissue letters patent valid, and directing a decree for the complainants in conformity with the prayer of the bill of complaint for an account of profits and dam 4 WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL, VS. GEORGE HOVEY. ages, which decree was duly entered, a copy of which is hereto an- nexed, marked Exhibit A, and directing a perpetual injunction, which was duly issued, a copy of which is hereto annexed, marked Exhibit B, as by the record and proceedings in said suit now re- maining in the office of the clerk of said court or a duly authenti- ‘ated copy thereof will appear. 16 And your orators further show unto your honors that since said adjudication numerous injunctions have been issued by said court against persons using said invention in infringement of said reissue letters patent. | And your orators further show unto your honors that your ora- tors, William D. Andrews, George H. Andrews, and Nelson W. Green, being the owners of said reissue letters patent for the county of Hennepin, in the State of Minnesota, did, in the months of No- vember and December, 1876, and January, 1877, file separate bills in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota against O. E. Spear, Joel B. Bassett, Sweet W. Case, Stephen Pratt, Robert L. Pratt, William L. Nichols, Anthony Kelly, George 17 B. Wright, and De Witt R. Wagner for infringement of said reissue letters patent and praying for injunction and account; that the several defendants appeared in the said suits by the same counsel and each filed the same answer denying the infringement and setting up that the reissue letters patent were false, fraudulent, and untrue and not for the same invention as patented and claimed in the original letters patent, and therefore void and of no effect ; that your orator Green was not the first or original inventor of the invention patented by said reissue letters patent, and alleging that long prior to the invention thereof by said Green the same 18 had been described in certain letters patent, applications for letters patent, and in many books, pamphlets, and publica- tions, and that it had been long known and used by many persons in different parts of the United States; that said Greene had _ for- feited his right to a patent by reason of the invention having been in public use and on sale for more than two years before his appli- cation for letters patent therefor; that any letters patent issued to Greene were obtained by fraud and deceit, and that 7f he had aban- doned the invention and dedicated it to the use of the public. That your orators filed replications to said answers, and the court permitted the several defendants to unite their defenses, the 19 evidence taken in one case to be used in all; that the suit against George B. Wright was selected for trial and a large amount of testimony was taken, nearly sixty witnesses having been examined, in five different States, during the months of August, September, October, November, and December, 1877; that suid suit was brought to a hearing on pleadings and proofs, the en- tire evidence in the previous suit against Theodore A. Carman was submitted to the court, and the case thoroughly argued by able coun- sel in December, 1877; that the said suit was taken under advise- ment by the court, which thereafter rendered its decision, overruling all the defendant’s defenses, holding said reissue letters patent valid, BT RINT BEY Ne ne eg ws’ Pad WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. and directing a decree for complainants, in conformity with 20 the prayer of the bill of complaint, for an account of profits ‘and damages, which decree was duly entered in each of the several cases, a copy of which is hereto annexed, marked Exhibit C, and directing a perpetual injunction, which was duly issued, a copy of which is hereto annexed, marked Exhibit D, as by the records and proceedings in said suits now remaining in the office of the clerk of said court or a duly authenticated copy thereof will appear. And your orators further show unto your honors that since said adjudication by the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota large numbers of injunctions have been issued by said court against persons using said invention in infringement of 21 said reissue letters patent, yet the said defendant, well knowing the premises and the rights secured to your orators aforesaid, but contriving to injure your orators and to deprive them of the benefits and advantages which might and otherwise would accrue unto them from said invention after the reissuing of said letters patent as aforesaid, and your orators becoming the owners of said reissue letters patents in, to, and for the county of Buchanan and district of Iowa, and before the commencement of this suit, did, as your orators are informed and_ believe, within the said district of Iowa, without the license or allowance and against the will of your orators, and in violation of their rights, and in infringements of the aforesaid letters patent, unlawfully and wrongfully and in 22 defiance of the rights of your orators make, sell, and use wells embracing said invention in the counties of Buchanan, Lima, Johnson, Muscatine, Wapello, Black Hawk,and other places to your orators unknown, all in district of Iowa aforesaid, and that he still continues so to do, and that he is threatening to make, sell, and use the aforesaid wells in larger quantities and to supply the market therewith, and to continue to use the wells as constructed by him, all in defiance of the rights acquired by and secured to your orators as aforesaid, and to their great and irreparable loss and injury, and by which they have been and still are being deprived of great gains and profits which they might and otherwise would have obtained, but which have been received and enjoyed and are being re- 23 ceived and enjoyed by the said defendant by and threugh his aforesaid unlawful acts and doings. And your orators further show unto your honors, on information and belief, that said defendant has one or more of said wells and is now making the same and has made and realized large profits and advantages therefrom, but to what extent and how much exactly your orators do not know and pray a discovery thereof; and your orators say that the use of said invention by said defendant and his preparation for and avowed determination to continue the same and his other aforesaid unlawful acts in disregard and defiance of the rights of your orators have the effect to encourage and induce others to venture to infringe said patent in disregard of your orators’ rights. : 24 And your orators further show unto your honors that they have caused notice to be given to said defendant of said in- 6 WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. fringements and of the rights of your orators in the premises, but he has disregarded said notice and still continue- to make, sell, and use the same. And your orators pray that said defendant, George Hovey, and his servants, agents, attorneys, and workmen and each and every of them may be restrained and enjoined by the order and injunction of this honorable court from directly or indirectly making, con- structing, using, vending, delivering, working, or putting into prac- tice, operation, or use or In anywise counterfeiting or imitating the said invention or any part thereof or any wells made in ac- 25 cordance therewith or like or similar to those which he has heretofore made or used, and that the said defendant may be decreed to pay the costs of this suit,and that your orators may have such further relief or such other relief as to this honorable court shall seem meet and as shall be agreeable to equity. May it please your honors to grant unto your orators a provisional or preliminary injunction, issuing out of and under the seal of this honorable court, commanding, enjoining, and restraining the said defendant, George Hovey, and. his servants, agents, attorneys, and workmen, and each and every of them, as is hereinbefore in that behalf prayed. : And forasmuch as your orators can have no adequate re- 26 lief except in this court, to the end, therefore, that the said defendant may, if he can, show why your orators should not have the relief hereby prayed,and may,upon his corporal oath and according to his best and utmost knowledge, remembrance, informa- tion, and belief, full, true, direct, and perfect answers make to the premises and to all the several matters hereinbefore stated and charged as fully and particularly as if severally and separately in- terrogated as to each and every of such matters, and that he may be compelled to account for and pay to your orators the profits by him acquired and the damages suffered by your orators from the aforesaid unlawful acts, and that the court may assess said profits and damages and may increase the damages to a sum not 27 exceeding three times the amount thereof : May it please your honors to grant unto orators the writ of subpoena, issuing out of and under the seal of this honorable court, directed to the said defendant, commanding him by a certain day and under a certain penalty to be and appear in this honorable court, then and there to answer the premises and to stand to and abide such order and decree as may be made against him. And your orators will ever pray, ete. (Signed) WM. D. ANDREWS &«& BROS. NELSON W. GREEN. NOAH J. PARSONS, By N. J. PARSONS. (Sg'd) RICKEL, WEST & EASTMAN, Solicitors for C omplainants. (S'o’d) HENRY RICKEL, Of Counsel. do c™ bo c™ WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 28 UniTEpD STATES OF AMERICA, | nee 88: District of Iowa, J On this 9th day of Dec., 1878, before me-appeared Noah J. Par- sons, to me personally known, and who, being by me duly sworn, did dispose and say that he is one of the complainants above named; that he has read the foregoing bill in equity and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters he believes it to be true. (Signed) A. N. EASTMAN, U. S. Com. for the Dist. of Iowa. 29 At a stated term of the circuit court of the United States of America in the eastern district of New York, in the second cireuit, held at the court-rooms, in the city of Brooklyn, on the second day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six. Present: Hon. Charles L. Benedict, district judge. Exuipit A. Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. In Equity. WiiitiamM D. ANDREWs, GEORGE H. ANDREWs, NELSON W. GREEN, ORLANDO BENNET, and PLAtrr CoNKLIN vs. THEODORE A. CARMAN. 30 This cause having come on to be heard upon the bill of complaint herein, the answer thereto of the defendant, the replication of the complainants to such answer, and the proof, oral, documentary, and written, taken and filed in said cause, and haying been argued at length by counsel for the respective parties: Now, therefore, on consideration thereof, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed, and the court doth hereby order, adjudge, and decree, as follows, to wit: | That the reissued letters patent No. 4372 granted to Nelson W. Green on the 9th day of May, 1571, for improvements in wells, being the letters patent referred to in the bill of complaint herein, are good and valid in law. That the said Nelson W. Green was and is the first and original _» Inventor and discoverer of the “improvement in wells” de- 31 scribed and claimed in the said letters patent and the specifi- cations annexed thereto. That the said William D. Andrews, George H. Andrews, Nelson W. Green, Orlando Bennet, and Platt Conklin are the exclusive owners of the said letters patent for the county of Queens, in the State of New York, within this district. That the said Theodore A. Carman, the defendant herein, has in- fringed upon the said letters patent and upon the exclusive rights of the complainants under the same by the construction and use of wells, as charged in said bill of complaint. WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the com- plainants do recover of the defendant the profits, gains, and advan- tages which the defendant has received or made or which o2 have in any way arisen or accrued to him from the infringe- ment of the said reissued letters patent by practising, making, using, or selling the invention and thing patented, as described and secured by the said reissued letters patent No. 4372, since the grant and issue thereof on the 9th day of May, 1871, and also the dam- ages which the complainants have or may have sustained by reason of any infringement of said reissued letters patent. And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that it be referred to L. Lincoln Benedict, Esq., special master appointed by this court, to ascertain and take and state and report to the court an account of the gains, profits, and advantages which the said defendant has re- ceived or which has accrued to or arisen to him since the 9th Oo day -of May, 1871, from infringing the aforesaid exclusive rights of the said complainants by the construction and use of wells such as are described in the aforesaid reissued letters patent numbered 4372, and also to compute, assess, ascertain, state, and re- port the amount of damages which the complainants have sustained by reason of the said infringements. And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the com- plainants have on such accounting the right to cause an examina- tion of the said defendant, ore tenus or otherwise, and also the pro- duction of the books, vouchers, and documents of said defendant, and that said defendant attend for such purposes before said special master from time to time within this district as said master shall direct. o4 And it is also further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that a perpetual injunction be issued in this cause against the said defendant, Theodore A. Carman, restraining him, his agents, attor- neys, clerks, servants, workmen, and all working or holding under or through him, from constructing or using wells such as are de- scribed in the aforesaid reissued letters patent, numbered 43872, pursuant to the prayer of said bill of complaint. And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the com- plainants do recover of the defendant their costs and charges and disbursements of this suit, to be taxed. CHAS. L. BENEDICT. I certify the foregoing to be a true copy of the original decree en- tered in the above-entitled action. B. LINCOLN BENEDICT, Clerk. 7 35 Exursit B. Unirep STATES OF AMERICA, me Eastern District of New York, fj ~* I, B. Lincoln Benedict, clerk of the circuit court of the United States of America for the eastern district of New York, do hereby WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. certify that the writings annexed to this certificate are true copies of their respective originals on file and remaining of record in my office. In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the said court to be hereunto affixed, at the city of Brooklyn, in the eastern district of New York, this thirty-first day of October r, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, and of the Inde- pendence of the said United States the 10Ist. b. LINCOLN BENEDICT, Clerk. 06 The President of the United States of America to Theodore A. Carman, his clerks, attorneys, servants, agents, and work- men, Greeting: Whereas it has been represented to us, in our circuit court of the United States for the second circuit and the eastern district of New York, that reissued letters patent of the United States were issued and granted in due form of law on the ninth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, to Nelson W. Green for improvements in wells, said letters patent being known and distinguished as “ reissue number 4572 ; And that you, Theodore A. Carman aforesaid, have infringed the rights secured by the aforesaid letters patent by constructing and using wells, contrary to the form of the statute in such vase made and provided : Now, therefore, we do strictly command and perpetually enjoin you, the said Theodore A. Carman, your clerks, attorneys, agents, servants, and workmen, under the pains and penalties which may fall on you and each of you, that you forthwith desist and refrain from constructing or using wells such as are described in the said reissued letters p: atent numbered 4372. — Witness the Honorable Morrison R. Waite, Chief Justice of the United States of America, at the city of Brooklyn, this third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six. [SEAL. ] B. LINCOLN BENEDICT, Clerk, ce. 38 Exnyipir C. In the Cireuit Court of the United States for the District of Minne- sota. In Equity. Wi.LiAM D. ANDREWS, GEORGE H. ANDREws, and Nretson W. GREEN against GEORGE Bb. WRIGHT. This cause came on to be heard at the December term of said court, A. D. 1887, upon pleadings and proofs, and was argued by the counsel for the respective parties. And the court, having considered said pleadings, proofs, and argu- ments, upon due advisement, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed in this cause as follows That the reissued letters patent No. 4372, of the United States, eee to said Nelson W. Green on the 9th day of May, 1871, —16 10 WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. ov for improvements in wells, being the letters patent referred to in the bill of complaint herein, are good and valid in law. That the said Nelson W. Green was and is the first inventor and discoverer of the inyention of the improvement in wells described and claimed in the said letters patent and tne specifications an- nexed thereto. | That the complainants, said William D. Andrews, George H. An- drews, and Nelson W. Green, are the exclusive owners of the said letters patent for the county of Hennepin, in the State of Minnesota, within this district, and of all rights of action for infringement thereof. That the said defendant herein, George B. Wright, has infringed upon said letters patent, and upon the exclusive right of the com- plainants under the same, by the construction or use of wells, AO as charged in said bill of complaint. And itis further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that thecom- plainants do recover of said defendant the profits, gains, and ad- vantages which the said defendant has received or made or which have in any way arisen or accrued to him from the infringement of the said reissued letters patent by practising, making, using, or selling the invention and thing patented or described and secured by the said reissued letters patent No. 4372, since the grant and issue thereof on the 9th day of May, 1871, and also the damages which the complainants have or may have sustained by reason of any infringement of said letters patent by said defendant. And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that it 4] be referred to Horatio E. Mann, Esq., master of this court, to ascertain and take and state and report to this court an ac- count of the gains and profits and advantages which the said de- fendant has received or which has accrued to or arisen to him since the 9th day of May, 1871, from infringing the aforesaid exclusive rights of the said complainants by the construction of, dealing in, using, or selling the said Wells such, as are described in the afore- said reissued letters patent numbered 4372, and also to compute, “assess, ascertain, state, and report the amount of damages which the complainants have sustained by reason of said infringement. And itis further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the com- plainants have on such accounting the right to cause an ex- 42 amination of said defendant, and also the production of the books, vouchers, and documents of said defendant, and that said defendant attend for such purposes before said master from time to time within this district as said master shall direct. And it is also further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that a_per- petual injunction be issued in this cause against the said defendant, George L. Wright, restraining him and his agents, attorneys, clerks, servants, workmen, and all working or holding under or through him from constructing, selling, putting down, or using wells such as are described in the aforesaid reissued letters patent number 4372, pursuant to the prayer of said bill of complaint. WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. V8. GEORGE HOVEY. 11 And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that 45 complainants do recover of the defendant their costs and dis- bursements of this suit to be taxed. R. R. NELSON, Judge. STATE OF MINNESOTA, bss: County of Ramsey, I, Horatio E. Mann, the clerk of the within-named circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota, as such clerk, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the foregoing paper with the original decree on file and and entered in the within-entitled -ause and of which, as such clerk, I am the custodian, and that the same is a true and correct and — transcript of said original decree and of the whole thereof. Witness my hand and the seal of this said court this July 10th, A. D. 1878 H. E. MANN, Clerk. At Exuipir D, In the Circuit Court of the United States, District of Minnesota. The U — States of America to George B. Wright, his agents, attor- neys, clerks, servants, workingman, | and all working or holding under or through him, Greeting: Whereas W iMinen D. dene. George H. Andrews, and Nelson W. Green have exhibited their bill of complaint before the judges of our circuit court of the United States for the circuit within and for the district of Minnesota against you, the said George Bb. Wright, praying to be relieved touching the infringement by you of their rights under reissued letters patent of the United States granted and issued in due form of law on the 9th day of May, 1881, to said Nel- son W. Green for “improvements in wells,” _ reissued 45 letters patent being known and distinguished as “ reissue number 4372,” and which was duly assigned to se are now owned by said William D. Andrews, George H. Andrews, and Nel- son W. Green ; and whereas bv the decree of said court entered on the tenth day of July, A. D. 1878, it was ordered adjudged, and de- creed that a writ of injunction issue under the seal of said court to restrain you and each and every one of you from constructing, mak- ing, manufacturing, selling, putting down, or using any well or wells such as are described in said reissued letters patent No. 4372: We, therefore, in consideration thereof, do hereby strictly com- mand and perpetually enjoin you, the said George b. Wright, your agents, attorneys, clerks, servants, workingmen, and all hold- 46 ing under or through you, under the pains and penalties which may fall upon you and each of you in case of disobe- dience, that you forthwith cease, desist, and refrain from construct- ing, making, manufacturing, selling, putting down, or using, either by or for yourself or as the seryant or workingman of another, in violation of said. reissued letters patent, any well or wells such as are described in said reissued letters patent No. 4372; whereof you are not to fail at your peril. 12 WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. Witness the Honorable Morrison R. Waite, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, at St. Paul, this twenty-second day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight. [Seal U.S. Court.] LAMPREY & JAMES, Complainants’ Solicitors. 47 (Endorsed:) 1850. (No. 51.) United States circuit court, district of Iowa. In equity. William D. Andrews, George H. Andrews, Nelson W. Green, and Noah J. Parsons vs. George Hovey. Bill of complaint. Filed Dee. 10, 1878. E. R. Mason, clerk. Rickel, West & Eastman, complainants’ solicitors, No. 32 Iowa avenue, Cedar Rapids. George Gifford, Milo Goodrich, b. F. Tracy, complainants’ counsel. 48 And on the 10th day of December, 1878, a subpcena in chancery was issued out of the clerk’s office in said cause ; which said subpcena, together with the marshal’s return thereon, was filed on the 26 day of December, 1878, in the words and figures following, to wit: H. E. MANN, Clerk. 49 UnitTep STATES OF AMERICA, \ ss District of Iowa, The President of the United States of America to George Hovey; Greeting: You are hereby commanded to appear before our judges of our circuit court of the United States of America for the district of Iowa, at Des Moines, in said district, on the first Monday in the’ month of January next, it being the 6th day of January, A. D. 1879, to answer the bill of complaint of William D. Andrews, George H. Andrews, Nelson W. Green, and Noah J. Parsons, this day filed in the clerk’s office of said court, in said city of Des Moines, then and there to receive and abide by such judgment and decree as shall then or thereafter be made, upon pain of judgment being pro- 50 nounced against you by default. To the marshal of the district of Iowa to execute. Witness the Hon. Morrison R. Waite, Chief Justice of the Su- preme Court of the United States of America, at Des Moines aforesaid, this 10 day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight, and of our Independence the one hundred and third year. [L. 8.] (Signed) EDWARD R. MASON, Clerk. MeMoORANDUM.—The within-named defendant is notified that unless he enters his appearance in the clerk’s office of said court, at Des Moines aforesaid, on or before the day to which this writ is returnable the complaint will be taken against him as confessed, and a decree entered accordingly. [L. s. ] (S’g’d) EDWARD R. MASON, Clerk. RICKEL, WEST & EASTMAN, Plaintiffs’ Solicitors. WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. ] 51 United States Circuit Court, District of lowa,ss. In Chancery. WiLuiAM D. ANpDREWs, GEORGE H. ANDREWs, NELSON W. GREEN, and NoaH J. PARSONS vs. GEORGE Hovey. To said defendant, George Hovey : Take notice that the complainants will move this honorable court on this 27th day of Dec., A. D. 1878, at 10 of the clock in the forenoon or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, at the cham- bers of the Honorable James M. Love, one of the judges of said court, at chambers, in the city of Keokuk, in said district, that a writ of injunction issue against you, the said defendant, 52 George Hovey, upon the bill of complaint and affidavit on file with the clerk of said court in the above-entitled cause, in accordance with the prayer of the said bill of complaint therein. Yours, «c., (Signed) RICKEL, WEST & EASTMAN, Complainants’ Solicitors. Dated this 9th day of Dec., A. D. 1878. I hereby certify that the within is a true copy of the original sub- peena and of the original notice of application for an injunction in chancery delivered to me for service. U. S. Marshal. I hereby appoint Charies H. Turner my true and lawful deputy to serve this writ. ee (S’g’d) J. W. CHAPMAN, U.S. Marshal. This suit came into my hands for service on the 10 day of D3 Dec., 1878, and I served the same on the within-named Geo. Hovey on the 14th day of Dec., 1878, by leaving with him a true copy of the same at his usual place of residence in Inde- pendence, Buchanan Co., Iowa. : J. W. CHAPMAN, U.S. Marshal, (S’g’d) By CHAS. H. TURNER, Spe. Dep. (Endorsed .) No. 1850. Eq. Circuit court of U. S., district of Jowa. William D. Andrews eé al. vs. George Hovey. Chancery subpeena. Returnable first Monday in January, A. D. 1879. Filed Dec. 26, 1878. E. R. Mason, clerk. Rickel, West & Eastman, com- plainants’ solicitors, 82 Iowa avenue, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 14 WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 54 And on the 6 day of January, 1879, the complainants, by Rickel, West & Eastman, their solicitors, & filean amendment to their bill in said cause in the words and figures following, to wit: 55 In the United States Cireuit Court, District, of Iowa. In Equity. W. D. ANpreEws, Gro. H. ANDREws, Netson W. GREEN, & Noau J. PARSONS US. GEORGE Hovey. To the honorable judges of the circuit court of the United States for the eighth judicial circuit, within and for the district of Iowa: Comes now the complainants in the above-entitled cause and amends their bill of complaint as follows: By inserting after the words “ in the State of New York,” in the second line thereof, the words “ and being citizens of the said State of New York;” By inserting after the words “ State of Massachusetts, ” in 56 the second line, the following words: “And being a citizen of said State of M: assachusetts ; ’ Inserting after the word “ Iowa,” in the 3rd line of said bill, the following words: “And being a citizen of the said State of Iowa.” And — addition to the allegation that said defendant, George Hovey, is a resident of buchanan county, Iowa, complainants allege that said defendant, George Hovey, is a citizen of the said State of lowa. And complainants further aver and charge that parties above named were citizens of the States as above stated at the time of the commencement of this action and the filing — the bill of complaint herein. (Signed) W. D. ANDREWS & BRO. “NELSON W. GREEN. NOAH J. PARSONS, By NOAH J. PARSONS. (S'e’d) RICKEL, WEST & EASTMAN, C seer pen Solicitors. (S’e’d) HENRY RICKEL, Of Counsel. UnITED STATES OF AMERICA, District of Iowa, has. On |this 4th day of January, A. D. 1879, before me appeared Noah J. Parsons, to me personally known to be such person, and who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he is one of complainants above named; that he has read the foregoing amend- ment to complainants’ bill of complaint and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true of his own knowledge. (Signed ) A. N. EASTMAN, United States Commissioner in and for the District of Towa. WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 15 58-71 (Endorsed:) In the United States circuit court. W. D. Audrews et al. vs. Geo. Hovey.. Amendment to complainants’ bill. Filed Jan. 6, 1879. E. R. Mason, clerk. Rickel, West & Eastman, compl’t- solicitors, Xe. | 72 And on the 13th day of May, 1879, the defendant, by Lake & Harmon, his solicitors, filed his answer to complainant’s bill in the words & figures following, to wit: 73 In the Circuit Court of the United States, District of Iowa. In Equity. WILLIAM D. ANDREWs eé al. vs. No. 1350. GEORGE Hovey. The answer of George Hovey to the bill of complaint of William D. Andrews, George H. Andrews, Nelson W. Green, and Noah J. Par- sons, complainants. The defendant, now and at all times hereafter reserving to him- self all benefit and advantage of exceptions which can or may be taken to the many errors, uncertainties, and imperfections in the said complainants’ bill of complaint contained, for answer thereto or unto so much and such parts thereof as he is advised are material for him to answer with —: 74 He denies that said Green was the original or first inventor of any new or useful improvements in wells, whether as set forth in any letters patent or otherwise, but he avers that identically and in substance the same pretended improvement, as hereinafter more ex- pressly stated, had been known and used vy many persons other than said Green long before the date of his pretended invention, and was by them known and used and was on sale and was in publie use more than two years before the time of his pretended applica- tion for letters patent. And this defendant is not advised or informed, save by the said bill of complaint, and cannot set forth as to his belief or other- 79 wise, whether the said Green was ever a citizen of the United States or whether he ever made application for any letters patent whatever, or whether any letters patent were ever granted or issued to him, whether as stated in said bill of complaint or other- wise, or as to whether he ever surrendered such letters patent or ever made any application for or obtained new letters patent in the prem- ises, or whether the same were ever granted or issued, or as to whether said Green ever executed any assignment of any interest or right in or to any letters patent to any person or persons, or as to whether any such assignment, if it ever was made, was ever recorded in the Patent Office, or as to whether the complainants ever, 76 by the means stated in their bill of complaint or otherwise, became or ever were the owners of any letters patent or in- vention, rights or privileges, in and for the county of Buchanan, Iowa, or elsewhere, or as to whether they have ever invested any sum of money in the;premises or been to any trouble, or as — whether 16 WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. said pretended invention is of any benefit or advantage, or as to whether any wells were ever constructed or made according to said invention, save as in this answer stated; they deny that the public have ever acknowledged or acquiesced in any right asserted by the complainants in the premises. And this said defendant is not advised or informed, save by the said bill of complaint, and cannot set forth as to his belief or 77 otherwise whether any such suits as those averred in the bill of complaint were ever commenced in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of New York or the district of Minnesota, or whether any of the alleged proceedings were ever had in those courts, or as to whether any such adjudication or decree as that alleged was ever given, rendered, or had therein. And the said defendant, further answering, denies that he ever at any place, whether as alleged in the said bill of complaint or otherwise, in violation of any right of the complainants or in in- fringement of any letters patent, wrongfully or unlawfully or in defiance of the rights of any person constructed or used any wells or threatens to construct or use any wells, or that he has ever 78 done or intends to do any act whatever in violation of any right of the complainants, or that he has ever caused them any loss or injury or deprived them of any gains or profits, or that any act which he has ever done or threatened has any effect to encourage or induce any person to infringe on said pretended patent or upon any rights of the said complainants, or that he has ever been notified of any infringement. And he denies severally and specifically each and every aver- ment contained in the said bill of complaint save as in this answer admitted, qualified, explained, or otherwise denied. And the defendant, further answering, denies that thesaid Nelson N. Green was the first or original inventor of the pretended 79 invention in said bill of complaint described or any or either of them, or of any substantial, material, or meritorious com- ponent thereof, but, on the contrary, he avers and says that the al- leged invention and all the substantial, material, and meritorious eomponents thereof were, long prior to any alleged invention thereof by said Green, described in certain letters patent and in certain appli- cations for letters patent and in certain books, pamphlets, and pub- lications hereinafter particularly described, and were known and used by divers persons in this country and elsewhere, to wit: The application for letters patent of the United States filed in Patent Office of the United States on the 16th day of May, A. D. . 1865, by 8S. R. & W.S. Hunter, of the town of Cortland, in 80 the State of New York. | The application of James Suggett, of the town of Cortland, in the State of New York, for letters patent of the United States filed in the office of the Commissioner of Patents on the 29th day of March, A. D. 1864. The application for letters patent of the United States made and filed by Byron Mudge, of said Cortland, in the office of said Com- missioner on the 24th day of October, A. D. 1865. “¢ “*¢ WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 17 Letters patent of the United States granted and issued to James Suggett aforesaid and dated March 2¥, A. D. 1864. Letters patent of the United States granted and issued to Byron Mudge, dated October 25th, 1865. Letters patent of the United States granted and issued to 81 S. R. and W.S. Hunter, of said Cortland, dated May 16th, 1865. The application of John Chandler, of Coldwater, Michigan, for letters patent of the United States and such letters patent granted to him dated September 4, A. D. 1866. The application of H. Ri and M. T. Barnes, of Watkins, New York, for letters patent of the United States and such letters granted to them dated August 15, A. D. 1865. Also that the pretended invention, precess, device, and apparatus and each thereof substantially the saine in construction and opera- tion as that asserted in said bill of complaint to be included in, covered, and protected by, said letters patent to said Green were made and were in public use for more than two years prior §2 to any application by said Green for said original letters pat- ent and more than two years prior to the date of said pre- tended invention, at Naperville, in the State of Illinois, as was known by James J. Hunt and A. McS. 8. Ridler, of that place, and by others, due notice of whose names and places of residence will be given to the complainants or their counsel. Also to Albert L. Rollo, who resides at Vineland, in the State of New Jersey, who had knowledge of the same at Cortland, in the State of New York, and in the towns adjoining said Cortland; also James Suggett, Stephen R. Hunter, Richard Lambert, James C. Car- michal, M. M. Waters, Howard Baker, A. P. Smith, and Henry Baker, who reside in said Cortland, and who severally had the 83 same knowledge of the same at said Cortland and im the towns adjoining. Also to H. W. Smith, who resides at Pontiac, Illinois, who knew of such use and actually made such use in Warren county, Ohio, in the year 1857. Also to Duane A. Tinckelpaugh, who resides in Minneapolis, Min- nesota, and knew of and saw such use in October or November, 1859, at Fairbury, in the State of Illinois, near a mill owned by one McDowell. Also to J. Phillips, Stephen Barnes, R. B. Amesbury, H. M. Gillett, John Zimmerman, H. Remington, all residents of Fairbury, who have the same knowledge as Tinckelpaugh, and particular to said Amesbury, who saw such use- at said Fairbury, in 1859, upon the premises occupied as a store by the firm of Amesbury, Pogne 84 & Thomas. Also at Piper City (then called Brenton), in the Siate of Illinois, in 1856, as was known to Michael Fitzmorris, now residing at Chatsworth, Illinois, and to John R. Lewis, Michenson, and Atwood, who reside at said Piper City, and to many others, whose names and places of residence will be furnished to the com- plainants or their counsel. ew a xcpmitenesamgecmesetnee th enrmemte - aoe came te ata . —— coe ares 3 a a eT SR ve ees 18 WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. Also L. Meeker and John Grimes, of Farmington, Minnesota, who knew of its use at Saratoga, New York, in 1855 and 1859. Also Chas. Seward, of Farmington, Minn., who knew of its use in Hillsboro, Illinois, in 1850 to 1857. ‘ Also to George Parish and Richards, who reside at S5 Chatham, Iowa, and knew of its use in Victor, New York, before 1855. ' Also John H. Edwards, of Stillwater, Minn., who knew of its use in Manlius, [l., in 1859 and 1860. Also to C. C. Linville, who new resides at Decorah, Iowa, who kuew of such use in the State of Kansas in 1860. Also to A. J. Parker, who resides at Ithaca, in the State of New York, and to George Geddes and Spencer, of Syracuse, New York, and who had knowledge of the same at Ithaca, Syracuse, and Salina, in said State. Also to J. P. Reeves and Wm. Dixon, of Minneapolis, Minn., — knew of its use in said Minneapolis in 1860. Also to William Clark, now residing at Minneapolis, Minn., who knew of its use in Johnson county, Iowa, in 1858. Also to J. M. Underwood, who resides at Minneapolis, Minn., S6 and who knew of its use at Kennebec, Maine, in 1859. Also to E. W. Purdy, who resides at Independence, Iowa, who put in these wells at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1849 and 1850. Also to O. T. Whitney, who resides in Minneapolis, Minnesota, who knew of — saw such use- on the State fair grounds at Elmira, New York, in the years 1859 and 1860. Also to Mr. Donelly, who resides at said Minneapolis, who knew of and saw such use- at the place of Wm. R.Wadsworth at Constable- ville, Lewis county, New York, in or about the vear 1860, and also upon the lot.of Mr. Sidle at the same place and time. Also to John W. Webster, who resides at said Minneapolis, who knew of and saw such use- in August, A. D. 1854, at the mouth of Calumet creek, near Chicago, I]linois. 87 Also to Frank Goodwin, who resides at said Minneapolis, who knew of and saw such use- in 1856 or in 1857 in repeated instances in the town of Harbor Creek, Erie county, Pennsylvania. Also to J. O. Miline, who resides at said Minneapolis, who knew of and saw such use- in the summer or fall of 1856 at his & his father’s place of residence in the town of Macedon, Wayne Co., N. Y. Also J. M. Griffiths, who resides at said Minneapolis, who knew of and saw such use- at the place of residence or business of Nat. Shary at Montgomery City, Missouri, in 1860 or 1861. That the knowledge of each of the aforesaid persons was of the pretended invention, process, device, and apparatus and of each thereof and of the actual use of the same at the times and places stated more than two years prior to the time when said Green inade his first application for such patent. 7 This defendant states further that in the month of April 88 or May, 1861, there was put in at Independence, Iowa, a well nade by driving down into the earth an iron tube shod with an iron or steel point, with perforations in the tube above the point, ~*~ oo ul well ~ oo vs el og 4 WILLIAM vv», ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 19 without a screen over the same, and sections of tubing attached as driven down until it was projected some feet into the water, and to the top of this tube was attached an iron pump, and the same was used for pumping water through, and was know and publicly used at such place from April or May, 1861, until some time in July or August, 1861, and was known to and used by the following-named persons, whose post-office address is Independence, Iowa, 89 to wit: Thomas Sherwood, Frank Trask, Perry Munson, Thomas H. Tyson, 8. P. McEwen, Dr. George Warne, S. S. Allen, S. M. Marquette, A. F. Williams, C. B. Kandy, George B. Warne, T. J. Marinus, D. 8. Deering, George Hovey, J.J. Travis, J. M. King, W. Wallace, A. H. Fonda, M. b. Jones, J. A. Davis, E. W. Purdy. And said well was also known to the following-named persons, whose post-office address is Jessup, Iowa: C. T. Kimball, John Ganier. And to the following, whose post-office address is. Quasqueton, Towa: b. C. Hale. And to the following, whose post-office address is Swanton, Lowa: Ehas 8. Hovey. And to the following, whose post-office address is Waterloo, 90 Iowa: S. W. Fenstermaker. And to the following, whose post-office address is Fairbank, Iowa: William Codling. This defendant, further answering, states that said invention was known and used in all its parts as described in said complainants’ bill of complaint and his letters patent long before the pretended invention claimed to have been made by Nelson W. Green, and was known to and used by the following-named persons now residing in Buchanan county, Iowa, in said county, in the spring of 1861: CT. Kimball, Thomas Sherwood, Frank Trask, Perry Munson, Thomas H. Tyson, Samuel P. McEwen, Dr. George W arne, 8. 8. Alle en, 5S. M. Marquette, A. F. Williams, C. B. Kandy, George B. Warne, 91 B. C. Hale, T. J. arenes. John Ganier, D. 8. Deering, George Hovey, J. J Davis, J. M. King, W. W allace. And was also known to Elias 8. Hov ey, who now resides at Swan- ton, Iowa, and that such knowledge and use was open and notorious a known to the publie at that time and place, and that such use ‘as before the pretended invention by said Green. And the defendant avers that the alleged invention and all the substantial, material, and meritorious components thereof were more than two years before said Green made any application for a patent and a long time before his alleged inventions described in certain printed books, pamphlets, and publications as follows, to wit: 92 In a report of Thomas Spencer, superintendent, and Henry W. Allen, inspector, of the salt wells at Syracuse and Salina, in the State of New York, and dated January Sth, A. D. 1842, in which the material parts of said pretended invention are described. In a report of said Spencer and Allen concerning said salt wells and the method of sinking wells at said places, dated January 9, 1841, 20 WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. In a report made by Richard Wright and James M. Allen, of said Syracuse, concerning the salt wells “of Salina and Syracuse, New York. In a report of the superintendent of the sait wells in said Syra- cuse, dated January, 1853, on pages 10 and 11, in which the material parts of said claim’and invention are described. In a certain book or public ation known as “ McKenzie’s 93 Five Thousand Receipts,” published by James King, Jr., aa Brother, at Philadelphia, A. D. 1829, and being a republica- tion from a London edition of the same work, on page 388, in which all the material parts of said pretended invention are described. In a certain book known as and called “Un’s Dictionary of Arts and Manufactures,” published: more than twenty years ago, but in what year defendant cannot now state, on pages 65, 66, and 67, in which all the material parts of said pretended invention are de- scribed. In volume 35 of a certain work known as “ Ree’s Cyclopedia,” published in Philadelphia about A. D. 1817, under the title of “Spring Draining Pump;” also in volume 5 of said work, O4 under the title of “ Borer in Ru-al Economy,” in each of w hich volumes all of the material parts of said pretended invention are described. Also in a book published in A. D. 1859 or 1860 by authority of the State of New ones entitled “Transactions of the State Agri- cultural Society of the State of New York for the Year 1859,” on page 280, where all the material parts of said pretended invention are described. Also in a certain report of Thomas Spencer, of Syracuse, New York, contained in the annual report of the New York State Agricultural Society for the year 1843 and published A. D. 1848 or 1844, on pages 8 and 9, in which all the material parts of said pretended invention are described. This defendant, further answering, states that said inven- 95 tion, after it was claimed tu have been made in 1861 by the said Nelson W. Green, at Cortland, in the State of New York, was by him made and put in use, under his order and direction, in the said county of Cortland, and was allowed to go into public use, with his knowledge and consent, and was allowed to remain 1n such use from October, 1861, until in March, 1866, when be made his first appearance fora patent, and that the said invention was used in public in said Cortland and was known to Byron Mudge, A. P. Smith, James Carmichal, James Suggett, W. S. Hunter, Wil- liam O. Bonnard, M. M. W aters, Julius A. Graham, Henry Bates, Henry Mead, Edward Ashdown, Horace Baker, Horato 96 Ballord, Ebinezer Mudge, Ira V. Hicks, James F reeman, Henry Woodruff, George N. Copeland, and Cornelius Brown, all of whom knew of such use for more than two years from the time said invention is claimed to have been made and before the said Green made any application for a patent. This defendant, further answering as to the well he has and uses, and the only well that this defendant ever possessed, owned, used, or sn hence on Sm eceparere . STEN ree " OI he BP = Ta ied arom Be Soe od WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 21 in any manner controlled, states that his well was not made in the manner claimed by said complainants in their bill of complaint, nor in manner and form like the said wells claimed by said complainants In any particular. . This defendant says that he has no well except an open- 97 dug well at his house, in Independence, and ati open-dug well on his farm, in Perry township, Buchanan Co., Iowa, with a hole drilled in the rock in the bottom. That all the wells he owns are open wells. ) This defendant says that he has made some wells since 1871, and that he makes all his wells by boring down to and into the water ; then putsin a tube, with large holes in the bottom, without a sere-n ; attaches a sand pump and pumps out a quantity of fine mud; then puts in a tube with wire scre-ns over the holes and attaches to that apump. Thisis his method of making wells. Defendant says that he never makes wells by driving a rod or instrument into the ground without removing the earth upwards as it is in boring. 98 And the defendant denies that the said pretended inven- tion in said bill of complaint described or any material part thereof was not known or used or had not been on sale or in public use for more than two years prior to the date of said pretended let- ters patent or to the date of the application therefor and with the knowledge and consent of the said Green; but he avers that, if it shall be held that said Green was the first or original inventor of said invention or anv substantial or material part thereof, that after his said invention and before he ever took any measures to obtain a patent and prior to the date of said patent, and for a date of more than five years before the date of his pretended application for a patent, said invention as claimed in said bill of complaint 99 and in said pretended letters patent and the substantial and material parts thereof were in common, public use, and were on sale with the knowledge and consent of the said Nelson N. Green, and that he, with full knowledge of said public use and sale, aban- doned the said pretended invention, if any he had, and ded‘cated the same to the use of the public. And the defendant avers that any letters patent which may have been issued to said Green in the premises were obtained by fraud and deceit, and that all and singular the several allegations in the application, specifications, — claims of or pertaining to said original and to the surrendered and reissued letters patent were wholly 100 false, fraudulent, and untrue, as the said Green has always well known,'and denies that the several owners in said origi- nal letters patent joined in the surrender of said letters patent or in the application for a reissue of the same; and,likewise, on informa- tion and belief, denies that said original letters patent were ever ' surrendered to the said Commissioner of Patents, as claimed in said bill, for good and lawful cause, but, on the contrary, the defendant, on information and belief, alleges that said reissued patent on which this complaint is brought was obtained by fraud and for the fraudu- lent purpose of enabling the said N. W.Green, complainant, and the other owners of said letters patent to include in said reissued letters Lr IN etree ho bo WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. patent more and other matters and things than those of which 101 he was or claimed to be the first or original inventor and more than he or the said complainants were entitled to include in lis said original letters patent and things and inventions of which he, the said N. W. Green, was not, at the time of his said original patent or his said application therefor, the first and original inventor, and that said reissued letters patent, on which this suit is brought, does include, describe, and contain and claims to have patented therein inventions and things of which the said complainant, the said Nelson W. Green, was not the first and original inventor; and, further, that, upon the face of said letters patent, the invention therein patented appears to be different from the invention patented 1014 and claimed in said original letters patent, and that the same are therefore void and of no effect. And the defendant therefore says, on information and belief, that said reissued letters patent on which this suit is brought were ob- tained by the said Nelson W. Green by false and fraudulent repre- sentations and suggestions to the Commissioner of Patents, and that said patent is therefore void. This defendant, further answering, says that the well as invented and patented by the said Nelson W. Green, and as described by him in his said letters patent and the specification thereto annexed and also to the reissue of the satne, will not work and make a well in the soil as it is in Iowa. 1013 That in no part of the premises occupied by him, as this — defendant is informed and believes, would such a well be of any use or benefit to this defendant. This defendant says that by reason of the imperfections in the construction of said wells and the manner in which the said Green describes them they will not succeed as wells in the soil of Iowa, but are wholiy and totally a failure by reason of the accumulation of fine particles of matter in the tube. This defendant further avers, on information and belief, that.some time in the years 1871 and 1872 Elias 8. Hovey and Elijah A. Ifovey did discover and invent a method or process by which wells 3 could be made in the soil of Iowa. 102 That some time in 1872 the said Elias S. Hovey procured from the Commissioner of Patents, at the office of said .Com- missioner, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, letters patent bearing date on the 20th day of F:bruary, 1872, and numbered 123,908, and that said process is entirely independent from and dif- ferent than the process pretended to have been invented by said Nelson W. Green, and is not any infringement on the rights or claims of the complainants herein, which letters patent or a duly cerlified copy thereof this defendant is ready to exhibit to the court ind to present the same for Inspection at such time or times as may by the honorable the judges of this court be required. . And this defendant further avers and states to this court that 103) by means of the removal of the earth upwards out of the well | pit as described in said letters patent issued to the said Elias S. Hovey, No. 125,903, as stated in said letters patent and the speci- . e —-: —_— WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 95 fications accompanying the same, the said process invented by the said Hovey will and does make a good and useful well in the soil as it is in the State of Iowa and especially in the land occupied by this defendant, whereas a well made as stated and described in the process as claimed to have been invented by the said Nelson W. Green and as set out in his letters patent reissue No. 4872 and the specifications accompanying the same a well could not be success- fully made in the soil of the premises occupied by this defend- ant. 104 This defendant says that he is the owner of the right to mnake wells by the process patented to Elias 8. Hovey as set out in his patent No. 123,908 for the State of Iowa; that he makes all the wells he has ever made by that process; that he bores to water and uses the Hovey process for the purpose of cleaning out the well pit; that he has never made a well according to Green’s patent, except for experiment. And this defendant denies all and all manner of unlawful com bi- nations and confederacy wherewith he is by the said bill charged, without this, that there is any other matter, cause, or thing in the said complainants’ said bill of complaint contained material or necessary for this defendant to make answer unto and not 105 herein and hereby well and sufficiently answered, confessed, traversed, and avoided and denied is not true to the knowl- edge and belief of this defendant; all which matters and things this defendant is ready and willing to aver, maintain, and prove as this honorable court shall direct, and prays to be hence dismissed with his reasonable costs and charges in this behalf most wrongfully sus- tained. (S’g’d) LAKE & HARMON, .. Solicitors and of Counsel for Defendant. District oF Iowa, ss: I, Geo. Hovey, the above-named defendant, having been duly sworn, deposes that what is contained in the foregoing answer, 106 so far as concerns my own act and deed, is true to my own knowledge, and that what relates to the act and deed of any other person or persons I believe to be true. (Signed) GEO. HOVEY. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24 day of April, A. D. 1879, by Geo. Hovey. [SEAL. | JED. LAKE, Notary Public, Buchanan County, Iowa. (Endorsed :) 1850. United States circuit court, district of Iowa. In equity. William D. Andrews e al. vs. Geo. Hovey. Filed May 13, 1879. E. R. Mason, clerk. Lake & Harmon, solicitors for de- fendant, Independence, Iowa. WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 107 And on the 26th day of May, 1879, the complainants, by their solicitors, filed in said cause their replication to defend- ant’s answer in the words and figures following, to wit: 108 Replication. In the Circuit Court of the U. S., District of Iowa. W. D. ANpDREws AND Bro. e¢ al. vs. GEORGE Hovey, Defendant. ‘The replication of W. D. Andrews & Bro. et al., complainants, to the answer of George Hovey, defendant. These repliants, saving and reserving unto themselves — and at -all times hereafter all and all manner of benefits and advantages of exceptions which may be had or taken to the manifold insufficiencies of the said answer, for replication thereunto say that they will 109 ~=aver, maintain, and prove their said bill of complaint to be , true, certain, and sufficient in law to be answered unto, and that the said answer of said defendant is uncertain, untrue, and in- ‘cufficient to be replied unto by these repliants, without this, and any ‘other matter or thing in said answer whatsoever contained material or effectual in the law to be replied unto and not herein and hereby well and sufficiently replied unto, confessed or avoided, traversed or denied, is true; all which matters and things these repliants are and will be ready to aver, maintain, and prove as this honorable court shall direct, and humbly pray as in and by their said bill they have already prayed. (Signed) RICKEL, WEST & EASTMAN, Complainants’ Soltcitors. 110-118 (Endorsed :) W. D. Andrews & Bro. e¢ al. vs. George Hovey. Replication of complainants. Filed May 26, 1879. KE. R. Mason, clerk. Rickel, West & Eastman, complainants’ solicitors. | 119 And on the 2 day of January, 1880, in the record of the proceedings in said court, is an entry in said cause in the words and figures following, to wit: 120-122 United States Circuit Court, District of Jowa. October Term, 1879. Friday, January 2, 1880. Wn. D. ANDREws et al. US. Eq. No. 1350. GEORGE Hovey. DECEMBER 30, 1879. Leave granted, by consent of counsel, to amend answer. (Signed) J. M. LOVE, Judge. ... a~ WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 95 123 And on the Ist day of March, 1880, the defendant, by his solicitors, filed in said court a motion for leave to file amend- ment to his answer in the words & figures following, to wit: 124 Motion. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: In the Circuit Court in and for the District of Iowa. In Equity. WitiiamM D. ANDREWS, GEORGE H. ANDREWs, et al. vs. GEORGE Hovey. Now comes the responcent in the above-entitled cause, George Hovey,and submits to the court the annexed amendment to his an- swer herein and asks leave of court to file the same in this cause. The defendant states that the citations of the printed publications, as stated in this amendment, are made in the original answer, to wit: The citation to Reese Cyclopedia is to a different edition, but 125 is the same work, only the edition to which we have been able to get access was published in 1819 instead of 1817, as stated in the edition cited in the original answer. The reference made to Mackinzie’s 5,000 Receipts in the amendment is one pub- lished in 1829, on page 500, and is the one to which we can get ac- cess, while this one, cited in the original answer, was published in 1829 by J. King, on page 388. Wherefor- this defendant says that the amendment does not in any manner increase the proof necessary to be made by the com- plainant- and does not change the nature of the answer, aud asks that it may be filed without ‘costs or terms. (Signed) LAKE & HARMON, | Solicitors for Deft. The solicitors ask that they may file the same amendment 126 ___—to all the cases tried of this nature in which they appear for the defendants. | (Signed) LAKE & HARMON, Solicitors for Numerous Def’ts. District oF Iowa: The application for leave to file the foregoing amendment in the case specified above and cases of the same nature coming on for hearing this day at chambers, Lake & Harmon being present for the defendants and Rickel, West & Eastman for the complainants, and the complainants’ counsel w aiving all objections to said motion and not resisting the same, it is ordered that said motion be allowed and that leave be granted to file said amendment accordingly. December, 30, 1879. (S’g’d) J. M. LOVE. 4—16 26 WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. oe af Amendment to Answer. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: In the Circuit Court in and for the District of Iowa. In Equity. Witiram D. ANpDREWs, GEoRGE H. ANDREWs, ef al. Us. Now comes , the defendant in the above-entitled cause, and, leave of court having been first obtained to make an amend- ment to his answer herein filed, in addition to the matters and facts heretofore in his answer in this cause filed, states: That the invention patented by Nelson W. Green and claimed by him to be his invention, as set forth in the bill of complain- 128 ants herein, was, long prior to the time of such claimed in- vention, mentioned and described in certain printed publica- tions and bocks as follows: . In Reese Cyclopedia, published in London, England, about the year 1819, in volume 5, under the head or title of “Borer in Ru-al Economy ;” and in volume 9838, under the head or title of “Spring Draining Pump,” and in volume 38, under the head of “ Well in Ru-al Economy.” Also as shown in plates, seis me 1, plate 37, of said Reese Cyclo- pedia, under the head of ‘ ‘Agriculture.” Said work known as Reese Cyclopedia is not paged, but the subject are arranged in alphabet- ical order, and the above subjects are described under the several heads and plates as stated. 4129 Also in a certain book known as Mackenzie’s 5,000 Re- ceipts, published in Philadelphia about the year 1829 by one J.J. Woodward, on page 500, under the head and title of “To Raise Water in All Situations.” Also in a certain book known as Livingston’s South Africa ene an account of the missionary travels and researches in South ‘Afric: by David Livingston, published by Harper Brothers in 1858, 1859, 1860, on page 59 of said book. Also in certain letters patent of the United States issued to Levi Disbro Novy. Ist, 1830 Also that said claimed invention was known in all its various parts, and the principles involved in said invention were used by and known to the following persons residing at Preble, in the 130. = county of Courtland and State of New York, to wit: William EK. Tallman, now deceased ; Moses C. Tallman, Mrs. Moses C. Tallman, Abram V andenburg, Theodore Klock, Thomas Getman, John Wilbur, Edwin Wilbur, ‘Charles W hite, George Taylor, Calvin Sheppard, John D. F. W oolston, John Hilligus, and Ezra Hilligus, who had knowledge of the same at Preble aforesaid. Also Henry C. “Ty allman, residing at Tully, Onondaga county, New York, who had knowledge of the same at Preble. 1 & WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 27 Also to Timothy H. Buxton, Chancey Buxton, Hiram Adams, Alonso Burr, Jabez B. Warren, and Spencer Cronkite, who resides at Warsaw, New York,and who knew of such use at Warsaw aforesaid. Also to B. C. Hales, who resides at Quasqueton, Iowa, and 131 ~to Elias 8. Hovey, who resides at Swanton, Iowa, and to S. W. Fenstermaker, J. E. Trexler, and Martin Rust, who reside at Waterloo, Iowa, and to William Codling, who resides at Fairbank, Iowa, and to M. B. Trins, John A. Davis, E. W. Purdy Almon T. Francis, Oliver Marquett, Walton Hill, H. A. King, — W. H. H. Morse, who reside at Independence, [owa, and knew of such use at Independence, Iowa, aforesaid. This defendant further state- that after the time that the said Nel- son W. Green claims to have invented said well or process the same was abandoned by the said Green to the public and was used by the public for more than two years before a patent was applied for. Wherefore defendant asks that the foregoing may be made 132 apart of his answer in this case in addition to the matters and facts as alleged in the original answer filed. Solicitors for Defendant. Unirep States oF AMERICA, District of Jowa: —, , being duly sworn, deposes and says that I am the de- fendant in the above-entitled cause; that the matters as set forth in this amendment to my answer are true, so far as my own knowledge is concerned, and those stated on belief I believe to be true. Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me by ——- —— this — day of , 1880. i 133 Witness my hand and seal. 3 Notary Public. WirtiAmM D. ANpDREws é al. vs. GEORGE Hovey and Other Causes. M-r-. Rickel, West & Eastman, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and solic- itors for complainants, do hereby consent that the amendment to the answer to which the within is a copy may be used by defendants in lieu of the one that Judge J. M. Love gave order to be filed on the 30th day of December, 1879, arid that this may be used in all the cases, as the other was ordered to be used. Jan. 22, 1880. (Signed) RICKEL, WEST & EASTMAN, Solicitors for Complainants. 154 (Endorsed:) Wm. D. Andrews, Geo. H. Andrews, e al. vs. George Hovey. Amendment to answer and order of J. M. Love, dist. judge, allowing same, filed in this cause and in all other causes. Consent of Rickel, W. & E. to file this in lieu of one ordered. Lake & Harmon, solicitors for defendants. Filed Mar. 1, 1880. E. R. Mason, clerk. WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 1435 -. And on the Ist day of March, 1880, the defendant, by his solicitors, filed in said cause an amendment to his answer in the words and figures following, to wit: (186_ Amendment to Answer. UniTeED STATES OF AMERICA: In the Circuit Court in and for the District of Iowa. In Equity. WiiiraAM D. ANpReEws, GrorcEe H. ANDREws, ef al. | vs. GEORGE Hovey. Now comes George Hovey, the defendant in the above-entitled ~ause, and, leave of court having been first obtained to make an amendment to his answer herein filed, in addition to the matters and facts heretofore in his answer in this cause filed, states— That the invention patented by Nelson W. Green and claimed by him to be his invention, as set forth in the bill of complain- 137 = ants herein, was, long prior to the time of such claimed in- vention, mentioned and described in certain printed publica- tions and books as follows: In Reese Cyclopedia, published in London, England, about the year 1819. In volume 5, under the head or title of “ Borer in Rural Economy.” And in volume 33, under the head or title of “Spring Draining Pump,” and in volume 388, under the head of “ Well in Rural Economy.” 3 Also as shown in plates, volume 1, plate 37, of said Reese Cyclo- pedia, under the head of “Agriculture.” Said work known as Reese Cyclopedia is not paged, but the sub- jects are arranged in alphabetical order, and the above subjects are described under the several heads and plates as stated. 1388 — Also ina certain book known as “ Mackenzie’s 5,000 Re- ceipts,” published in Philadelphia about the year 1829, by one J. J. Woodward, on page 500, under the head and title of ‘‘ To Raise Water in all Situations.” Also in a certain book known as “Livingston’s South Africa,” being an account of the missionary travels and researches in South Africa by David Livingston, published by Harper Brothers, in 1858, 1859, 1860, on page 59 of said book. Also in certain letters patent of the United States issued to Levi Disbro Nov. Ist, 1850. Also that said claimed invention was known in all its various parts, and the principles involved in said invention were used by and known to the following persons residing at Preble, in the country of Cortland and State of New York, to wit: William E. Tall- 1389 man, now deceased; Moses C. Tallman, Mrs. Moses CU. Tall- man, Abram Vandenburg, Theodore Klock, Thomas Getman, John Wilbur, Edwin Wilbur, Charles White, George Taylor, Calvin Shepard, John D. F. Woolston, John Hilligus, and Ezra Hilligus, who had knowledge of the same at Preble aforesaid. = f ad a WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 29 Also Henry C. Tallman, residing at Tully, in Onondaga county, New York, who had knowledge of the same at Preble. Also to Timothy H. Buxton, Chancey Buxton, Hiram Adams, Alonson Burr, Jabez B. Warren, and Spencer Cronkite, who reside at Warsaw, New York, and who knew of such use at Warsaw afore- said. Also to B. C. Hale, who resides at Quasqueton, Iowa, and to Elias S. Harvey, who resides at Swanton, Iowa, and to 8S. W. Fenster- maker, J. E. Trexler,and Martin Rust, who reside-at Water- 140 loo, Towa ,and to William Codling, w ho resides at “airbank, Towa, al to M. B. Tims, John A. Davis, E. W. Purday, Al- mon I. Francis, Oliver Marquett, Walton Hill, HA. King, W. H. H. Morse, who reside at Independence, Iowa, and knew of ‘such use at Independence, Iowa, aforesaid. This defendant further states that after the time that the said Nel- son W. Green claims to have invented said well or process the same was abandoned by the said Green to the public, iid was used by the public for more than two years before a patent was applied for; wherefore defendant asks that the foregoing may be made a part of his answers in this case in addition to the matters and facts 141 as alleged in the original answer filed. (Signed) LAKE & HARMON, Solicitors for Defendant. Unitep Srates oF AMERICA, District of Iowa: I, George Hovey, being duly sworn, deposes and says that I am the defendant in the above-entitled cause; that the matters as set forth in this amendment. to my answers are true, so far as my own knowledge is concerned, and those stated on belief [ believe to be true. Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me by George Hovey this 25 day of February, 1880. Witness my hand and seal. [SEAL. ] (Signed) JED. LAKE, Notary Public in and for Buchanan County, Iowa. 142 (Endorsed :) William D. Andrews, Geo. H. Andrews, et al. vs. Gev. Hovey. Amendment to Answer. Filed Mar. 1, 1880. E. R. Mason, clerk. Lake & Harmon for def’ts. WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 1438 And on the 14th day of June, 1880, the defendant, by Lake & Harmon, his solicitors, filed in said cause a list of wells made by defendant in the words and figures following to wit: 144 Notice of Provisions in Stipulation Dec. 13th, 1879. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: In Cireuit Court for the District of Iowa. WintiAM D. ANpREWws, GEORGE H. ANDREWS, ef al. vs. GEORGE Hovey. In accordance with the provisions in the stipulation entered into by and between the complainants and defendant herein, by Rickel, West and Eastman, solicitors for complainants, and Lake and Har- mon, solicitors for defendant, on the 13th day of December, 1879, at the city of New York, and in pursuance of the conditions in said stipulation, notice is hereby given that the defendants 145 hereinafter named, against whom suits have been brought for infringing letters patent reissue No. 4572, dated May 9th, 1871, issued to Nelson W. Green, by the above-named complainants in the above-named court, admit that they each have a well made in the same manner, and the method of construction was the same as that used by the above-named defendant, George Hovey, since 1871, lease No. 1260: W. Butterfield, No. 1267. H. Griswold, No. 1270. William Hayes, No. 1275. G. W. Rice, No. 1277. I. Stratton, No. 1345. J. Couch, No. 1855. G. M. Miller, No. 1356. C. Marton, No. 1417. J. Burke, No. 1420. M. Emisminger, No. 1422. J. Hollett, No. 1424. 146 J. Klotzbach, No. 1425. W. H. H. Morse, No. 1428. W. B. Phelps, No. 1483. I. S. Wileox, No. 1351. EK. k. Jenks, —. It is further admitted by the defendants whose names are here- inafter written that they each have a well made in the same man- ner and by the same process of construction as used by the defend- ant, George Hovey, but that their wells were made and used and were in successful operation before the date of said reissued letters patent No. 4372, issued to Nelson W. Green and dated the 9th day of May, 1871, and for that reason they are not liable to pay any royalty or any costs or damages in the suits pending against them, to wit: 147 No. 1264, Eli Cutshaw. No. 1269, A. Hayeman. ee r x led e - ey? Eq. No. 1350. Us. GEORGE Hovey. ] Turespay, Jay 22, 1883. This cause, the same having been heretofore fully submitted to the court and taken under advisement, now comes up for final dis- position, and the court, having duly considered the same, files an opinion and decision in writing, wherein the court finds, upon the several issues of fact and law therein set forth, in favor of the re- spondents. It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that com- 698 _ plainants’ bill be dismissed and that respondents have judg- ment for costs of this proceeding, taxed at $—. Thereupon complainants pray and appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which is allowed upon filing a bond in the penal sum of three thousand dollars, conditioned as the law directs, with sureties to be approved by one of the judges of this court. 699 And on the 20th day of July, 1883, the complainants, by their solicitors, filed in said cause an appeal bond in the words and figures following, to wit: 700 ~=In the Circuit Court of the U.S., Southern “District of Iowa. In Equity. W. D. ANpDREws ef al. vs. No. 1350. GEORGE Hovey. Know all men by these presents that we, W. D. Andrews, George H. Andrews, Nelson W. Greene, and Noah J. Parsons, complainants in the above-entitled cause, and Henry Bennett, Jr., W. W. Smith, I. N. Isham, and C. G. Greene, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, are held and firmly bound unto George Hovey, the defendant in the above cause, Sef CRUMP Ter alia Br ys tng, Bethe red “ 56 WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. in the sum of three thousand dollars, to be paid to the said George Hovey, his executors or administrators; to which payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves and each of us, jointly and sev- erally, and our and each of our heirs, executors, and administra- tors, firmly by these presents. 701 Dated this 11th day of July, A. D. 1883. Now, the conditions of the above obligation is such that whereas the above-named W. D. Andrews, George H. Andrews, Nelson W. Greene, and Noah J. Parsons have appealed from the above court to the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the decree rendered in the above-entitied cause by the circuit court of the United States, southern district of Iowa: Now, therefore, the conditions of this obligation is such that if the above-named W. D. Andrews, George H. Andrews, Nelson W. Greene, and Noah J. Parsons shall prosecute their said appeal with effect and answer and pay all damages and costs in case they shall fail to make their plea good, then this obligation to be void ; 702 otherwise to remain in full force and virtue. q (Signed) WM. D. ANDREWS. GEO. H. ANDREWS. NOAH J. PARSONS. ° \ NELSON W. GREENE, | By R. R. WEST, Att’y. HENRY BENNETT, JR. W. W. SMITH. I. N. ISHAM. C. G. GREENE. STaTE oF Iowa, County of Linn: I, Henry Bennett, Jr., one of the parties named in the foregoing bond, being duly sworn, depose and say that [ am worth, over and above all my debts and liabilities and exemptions of every kind, and of property situated within the State of Iowa, in the amount of four thousand dollars. (S’g’d) HENRY BENNETT, Jr. The foregoing affidavit was subscribed in my presence and 703 sworn to before me by the above-named Henry Bennett, Jr., this 17th day of July, A. D. 1888. Witness my hand and seal. | [SEAL. ] (S'g’d) A. R. WEST, Notary Public in and for Linn County, Jowa. STATE OF Iowa, County of Linn: I, W. W. Smith, one of the parties named in the foregoing bond, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am worth of property within the State of lowa, over and above all my debts, liabilities. and ex- emptions — property, of the value of at least four (4) thousand dollars. (S’e’d) W. W. SMITH. = WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 57 The foregoing affidavit was subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me by the above-named W. W. Smith this 17th day of July, A. D. 1883. Witness my hand & seal. - } [ SEAL. | (S’g’d) A. R> WEST, 704 Notary Public in and for Linn County, Iowa. STATE OF Iowa, Linn County, I, I. N. Isham, one of the parties named in the foregoing bond, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am worth, over and above all my debts, liabilities, and exemptions of property within the State of Iowa, the sum of three thousand dollars. (S’e’d) _ L. N. ISHAM. The foregoing affidavit was subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me by the above-named I. N. Isham this 17th day of July, 1883. Witness my hand & seal. [SEAL. | (S’g’d) A. R. WEST, Notary Public in and for Linn County, lowa. STATE OF Iowa, Linn County, 705 I, C. G. Greene, one of the parties whose name is in the foregoing bond, depose and say that I am worth, over and above all my debts, liabilities, and exemptions of property within the State of Iowa, the sum of not less than three thousand dollars. (S’o’d) C. G. GREENE. The foregoing affidavit was subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me by the above-named C. G. Greene this 18th day of July, A. D. 1883. Witness my hand and seal. [SEAL. ] (S’g’d) A. R. WEST, Notary Public in and for Linn County, Lowa. STATE OF a} nee Linn County, I, Geo. L. Stearns, clerk of the dist. court within and for county and State above named, hereby certify that I am acquainted with Henry Bennett, Jr., I. N. Isham, W. W. Smith, and C. C. 706-707 Greene, parties who have signed the within bond, and from personal examination I know them to be worth the sums set forth in their several affidavits and that the within bond is per- fectly good for amount named therein, and if offered in my county would approve the same. Dated at my office, in Marion, this 18th day of July, 1883. [SEAL. | (S’o’d) GEO. L. STEARNS, Clerk of the District Court. S—16 58 WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. The foregoing bond is hereby approved. July 19th, 1883. (S’g’d) J. M. LOVE, Judge. (Endorsed :) No. 1850. Eq. Wm. D. Andrews e al. vs. George Hovey. Appeal bond. Filed Jul. 20, 1883. Ed. R. Mason, clerk. 708 Uwntrep Srates oF AMERICA, | Southern District of Lowa, f The President of the United States to George Hovey : You are hereby cited and admonished to be and appear at a Su- preme Court of the United States to be holden at W anne on the second Monday of October next, pursuant to an appeal ‘filed in the clerk’s office of the United States circuit court for the central division, southern district, of Lowa, wherein William D. Andrews, George H. Andrews, Nelson W. Green, and Noah J. Parsons are ap- pellants, to show cause, if any there be, why the judgment rendered against said appellants, as in the said appeal mentioned, should not be corrected and why speedy justice should not be done to the par- ties in that behalf. Witness the Honorable James M. Love, one of the judges of the U.S. eircuit court for the southern district of Iowa, at the 709 ~~ city of Keokuk, in the said district, this 19th day of July, 1885. J. M. LOVE, Judge. S$ - Due and legal service of the foregoing citation is hereby accepted this 25rd day of July, A. D. 1883. LAKE & HARMON, Solicitors for A ppellee. STaTE OF Iowa, ) .. Buchanan Co., {~’ I, E. L. Currier, being duly sworn, depose & say that 1 person- ally served the foregoing citation upon said George Hovey, in Indepeudence, Buchanan Co., Iowa, on the 1st day of ‘August, A. D. 1883, by reading same to him in his presence & hearing. & deliver- ing to him a true copy thereof. Kk. L. CURRIER, (Sheriff Buchanan Co., Ia.) The foregoing affidavit was subscribed in my presence & sworn to before me this Ist day of August, A. D. 1883, by said E. L. Cur- rier. Witness my hand « seal. [ Notarial Seal, John J. Ney, Independence, Iowa. ] JOHN J. NEY, . Notary Public. Fees for service, 80 cts. [Endorsed :] Andrews et al. vs. Hovey. Citation. Filed Aug. 3, 1883. Ed. R. Mason, clerk. } or co WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 710 United States Circuit Court, Central Division, Southern District, of Iowa. I, Edward R. Mason, clerk of said court, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing transcript contains full, true, and complete copies of all the pleadings, proceedings, and record entries, except the testimony, in a certain cause adjudicated in said court, wherein William D. Andrews ef al. were complainants and George Hovey was defendant, as full, true, and complete as the originals of the same now remain on file and of record in my office. I further certify that the original citation, with the return of service endorsed thereon, is hereto attached and herewith returned. In testimony whereof I hereunto subscribe my name and affix the seal of said court, at the city of Des Moines, in said district, this 11th day of October, A. D. 1883, and of our Independence the one hun- dred and eighth year. [Seal U.S. Circuit Court, Southern District, Iowa. ] EDWARD R. MASON, Clerk U. S. Circuit Court, Central Division, Southern Dist., Ia. 711-714 And the complainants, to sustain the issues in their be- half, introduced upon the hearing in said cause the follow- ing testimony and documentary. evidence, to wit: 715 Testimony taken upon the part of complainants in this case of W. D. Andrews et al. vs. George Hovey, pending in the circuit court of the United States in and for the district of Iowa, in pursuance of the annexed agreement and stipulation, upon final hearing of said cause August Sth, 1879, at 9 o’clock a. m., Ricket, West & Eastman appearing as solicitors for complainants and Lake & Harmon as solicitors for defendants. GroRGE Hovey was produced on part of said complainants, and, duly sworn as required by law, deposes as follows: 716 Complainants here offer letters patent, known and desig- nated as reissue 4372, issued to Nelson W. Green May 9, 1871, marked Exhibit “A.” Also certified copy of assignment and power of attorney, marked Exhibit “B,” dated July 8, 1871, Nelson W. Green to W. D. An- drews and George H. Andrews, composing the firm of W. D. Andrews «& Bro. Defendant objects to this copy as not being the best evidence, be- ing a printed extract and not the originol paper, and further that this assignment does not purport to be an assignment of the patent offered in evidence. Complainants also introduce in evidence an assignment from Nelson W. Green and W. D. Andrews & Bro. to Noah J. Parsons, dated 15th of October, 1878, of an undivided one-twentieth (,{;) of the State of Iowa, of letters patent, known as reissue of No. 43872, marked Exhibit “C.” FH are ma ERE oe COR ae Oa RRNA — Sn a . eaiethtieeeniee tein te seen PI Ae cme er eweye li ne oe eee 60 WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. Complainants also offer in evidence a certified copy of letters pat- ent granted to Elias S. Hovey, February 20, 1872, numbered 123,903, for improvement in the formation of drive wells. Complainants also offer in evidence certified copy of decree en- tered in the case of W. D. Andrews et al. vs. Theodore A. 717 Carman, of the circuit court of the United States for the east- ern district of New York. Complainants offer in evidence certified decree of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota in case of W. D. Andrews et al. vs. Geo. B. Wright. Complainants introduce in evidence a certified decree of the cir- euit court of the United States for the district of Indiana in the case of Henry B. Hine eé¢ al. vs. Jacob Wahl, marked Exhibit “ F.” 718 Int. 1. What is your name, age, residence, and occupation? A. My name is George Hovey; am 59 years old; reside at Independence, Iowa; am a dealer in well material. Int. 2. What is your relation to this suit? A. I am the defendant. Int. 3. How long have you been engaged in putting down wells ? A. Since the spring of 1871. Int. 4. Have you got books or papers showing for whom you put down wells during that time? A. Not all. Int. 5. Have you any; and, if so, to what extent ? A. What was put in between Hovey Bros. I have not the books. Int. 6. Those you put down on your own account have you the books or papers? | A. I have not. Int. 7. Have you any books or papers referring to wells put down on your own account or that of your brothers; and, if so, what have you? A. I have none of my brothers; I may have some of my own; I have not many. I lost the book between here and New Hartford or at New Hartford; I mean the book I had used for two vears. 719 Int. 8. When did you lose it ? A. I think two years ago this fall. Int. 9. How have you been keeping your account of wells since you lost that book ? A. I have not kept a regular account. When a man paid me or a note was given I never put it on the book. Int. 10. Did you, in obedience to the subpcena in this case, bring with you any books or papers relating to your putting down wells? A. Ihave no such book or papers. Int. 11. Have you no books or papers showing for whom you have put down wells or where you have put them down ? A. I have some. . Int. 12. Why did you not bring them and produce them, in obe- dience to the subpcena that was served on you? A. I have no books stating the manner I put in wells. Int. 15. You refuse, then, to produce the books and papers show- ing for whom you put down wells? " peti, will i WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 61 A. I have not been asked, as I understand it. Int. 14. Have you not been asked to produce all papers pertain- ing to your putting down wells? A. No, sir. Int. 15. You please read from the copy of the subpcena now in your hand and served on you that part relating to your producing books and papers. A. That you bring with you all books and papers relating to your constructing wells in Iowa. Int. 16. You consider that your books and papers showing for whom and where you put down wells in Iowa does not in any man- ner relate to your business of constructing wells? A. No. . Int. 17. How far do you reside from the place of taking this testi- mony? A. About one-half mile. 720 Int. 18. Are the books and papers you refer to at your resi- dence, about 4 mile from here, or any part of them ? A. Yes, part of them. Int. 19. Will you produce those books and papers upon the com- ing together of the attorneys and examiner this afternoon ? A. No; if I am asked if I put in a well for such a man I will tell whether I did or not. Int. 20. Can you tell for whom you put in wells without your bocks and papers ? A. I can for part of them. Int. 21. What number can you give? A. Well, I can’t state. ee Int. 22. Now, go on and state for whom you have put down wells in [Towa and when and where, without your books and papers. A. If he will ask me the name I will answer, but in no other way. Int. 23. Then you refuse to tell for whom you put down wells in Iowa and when and where ? A. Yes. Int. 24. Why do you refuse ? A. I don’t wish to bring others into the suit until mine is through. Int. 25. Who, if any one, has instructed you not to produce those papers and books ? A. No one that I know of. Int. 26. Has any one advised you not to produce them ? A. No, sir. Int. 27. Has anv one suggested to you that you had better not produce them ? A. Well, somebody or other did a good while ago—I think it was one of my brothers. There may have been others; I don’t remem- ber of any others. Int. 28. Do you not know that you are guilty of contempt of court in refusing to tell for whom you put down wells, and when and where ? : A. No, I don’t. winds cee er 62 WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. Solicitor for complainants here informs the witness that it 721 is his duty to answer; that he is guilty of contempt of court unless he does answer. Q. 29. Do you still refuse to tell for whom and when and where you put down wells in Iowa within the last 4 years ? A. If you will name some men for whom I put in wells I will tell you w eran I did or not; I will not give a list of the names. Q. 50. Can you give a list of names for whom you put down wells in Iowa for the last 4 years ? A. No. (. 31. Can you give any names for whom you have put down wells in Iowa for the last 4 years ? A. I could if I wished to. Q@. 32. Will you go on and do so, as far as you can? A. No. (. 33. Why will you not; give all your reasons ? A. One reason is others would be sued. Q. 34. Then, the only reason you have to give is that other parties might be sued ? A. Thatisthereason; I should not give the names of other parties for them to sue. (. 35. Is there no other reason? . A. That is the principal reason ; there may be others. Q. 56. Do you know of any other reason ? A. I have no other reason to give. Q. 37. What did you mean by saying a few moments ago that you could not give a list of the names and then saying you could and refusing to give them? A. I said I could not give a list of all; I did not say [ could give a list of all. Q. 358. You meant to say, then, that you could give a partial list? A. Yes. (. 39. But you now refuse to give any list whatever ? 722 A. If you will give me the name of the party I will tell you whether I put in a well for him or not; I will not give a list of the names. Q. 40. Then I understand you to say that you will not give the names of any parties you put down wells for unless I first give the names to you: A. oe. Q. 41. Who has assisted you in putting down wells during the: time you were engaged in constructing and making wells in Iowa? Give the names and residences of parties as fully as you can. A. D. W. H ovey, of Winthrop, in this county; James E. Brace, of Independence, Iowa; F. W. Hovey, of Independence, Iowa ; James Litts, of same citv; E. S. Hovey, of Swanton, Butler county, Iowa; and IX. A. Hovey, of Tampico, Whiteside county, Ill. Q. 42. Who composed the firm of Hovey Bros., who were engaged in constructing wells in Iowa during the last few years? A. E.S. Hovey, E. A. Hovey, and George Hovey. . WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 63 Q. 43. When did that partnership begin and when did it end? It begun in thespring of ’71,1 believe; I could not tell the Phosd I think we ran about two years. Q. 44. Are you the owner of the patent issued to Elias S. Hovey, dated February 20th, igta, * * * No. 123,908, for the State of Iowa? A. Yes, sir. Q. 45. Have you been engaged in constructing wells in Iowa since 1872, according to the method pointed out in the patent re- ferred to which you say you own for lowa? © A. I have used that patent for cleaning out the bottom at all times. Q. 46. Have you followed out the method pointed out in the said patent for constructing wells put down by you since 1872? A. As far as cleaning out of the sand is concerned, I did. The top of the well I have bored with an auger down to the water in all instances, 725 Q. 47. Wherein has the method used by you in construct- ing wells since 1872 differed from the method pointed out in this patent ? A. I don’t know that there is much difference. This don’t state whether it was bored or driven. Mine was bored to the water and then the sand cleaned out according to the patent. Q. 49. Do you know D. B. Cox, of Johnson Co., lowa? A. I do. Q. 50. Do you remember of constructing his well or did you assist in duing it? A. No, sir; I was not there. I was sick at the time, and not there. a Q. 51. Was any one doing it for you? A. They were doing it for Hovey Bros. Q. 52. Was you a member of that firm ? A. I was. Q. 53. Did you assist in constructing a well for Andrew Fountain, Chas. B. Cox, M. J. Loan, J. R. Numerly, Henry Winans, Thos. Cox, John Mosford, Samuel Shellidy, and Milner Smith ? A. I don’t think I was there when the Fountain well was put in; the Loan well was put in under my direction ; suppose I was there at Numerly’s well; [ don’t know but I was there at Winman’s; I don’t know that I was at Thos. Cox ; I put in Mosford’s, Shelliday’s, and Smith’s wells; these were all put in for Hovey Bros.; I was in the neighborhood at the time. Q. 54. Do you know whether you did any driving in constructing the wells for the parties named ? A. We always bored, as far as we could: we done no driving above the water. Q. 55. Did you drive or force the pipe below the water? A. In some instances we did, a foot or so. Q. 56 Will you swear positively that you did not force or drive the pipe more than a foot or so below the water in those cases ? 64 WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 724 A. I will swear positively that Winans’ was not drove at all; it was put in a dug well and bricked up; there was three foot of water at the time; I don’t remember of the others being drove any; they might have been. : Q. 57. In the case of Winman’s, did you do any boring? A. No, it did not need any; it was an open well. Q. 58. Was there any point on the pipe put in the Winman well? A. Yes, there was a point and screen on it. Q. 59. What did you put on a point and screen for in the Win- man well? A. Oh, so it would not pump up frogs and sticks. Q. 60. Will you swear that this pipe sat on the bottom of the well, and did not go into the bottom of the well at ail? A. I suppose it went into the bottom of the well. Q. 61. How deep did it go into the bottom of the well? A. Can’t say. (). 62. How did it get into the bottom of the well? A. It was put In. Q. 63. How was it put in, by forcing or driving? A. Neither forcing or driving; we set the pipe in the well. (). 64. How was it projected into the bottom of the well, if there was no forcing or driving and you done (no) boring ? A. In the first place, the well was dug out and bricked up and the pump was put in. Q. 65. What makes you suppose that it went into the bottom of the well, if there was no driving, boring, or forcing of the pipe? A. I meant to say that I suppose it went to the bottom of the well. (). 66. You ain’t sure that it went to the bottom of the well? A. I don’t remember that it reached the bottom or not; if it did not, it did pretty near. 725 Q. 67. How deep was that well? A. Don’t remember. Adjourned until 1.30 p. m. for dinner. Parties present, and resumed the taking of testimony. GrORGE Hovey on the witness stand: Q. 68. How long was the pipe? A. I do not know. Q. 69. How did you charge him for doing the job? A. I don’t remember; sometimes I done it by the foot and some- times by the job. Q. 70. Did you clean out the well pit? A. I did not. Q. 71. Was a pipe put down first, and as and pump attached ? A. Don’t know. Re, What did you say was the reasons for his fixing it in this way ! A: When the river was high it overflows clear up to this house, almost to the top of the well. — WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. 65 Q. 73. Then you don’t know whether this was driven into the bot- tom or not? A. I don’t know. Q. 74. Have you put down wells for any persons where you have put them in the bottom of an open well? A. Yes, sir. Q. 75. For whom ? A. I put one in for Mr. Snow of this town—helped put in. . 76. When? . Don’t remember; a number of years ago. . 77. Is that well still in existence? A. It is. Q. 78. Was there water in the bottom of the well when you commenced putting it in? . Yes, sir. . 79. How deep was the water ? . I should judge about 2 feet. . 80. What was the bottom of this weli—sand and gravel ? . Yes; sand and gravel. . 81. How deep in the bottom did you project your point and screen ? A. I presume the point went about 4 or 5 feet under water. Q. 82. Did you bore any in making that well? A. I did not. Q. 85. How far up did the point and screen extend up on the ipe? A. I should judge about a foot and a half. Q. 84. Then the point and screen was about a foot and a half be- low the surface on the bottom of the well? A. Yes. Q. 85. Did you dig in the bottom of the well ? A. No; we used what we call the drive point. Q. 86. Did you drive an instrument into the bottom of the well before you put in the point and screen ? A. No, sir; we put this point in. Q. 87. How did you project it into the bottom of the well to the depth you say ? A. We drove it in with what we call a drive point or worked it down ; I don’t know that we drove it all the way. Q. 88. What were the reasons for driving this point into the bot- tom of the well and putting on a point and screen ? A. He wanted me to—I mean by heSnow. His reasons were that the walls were rather poor and that it might cave in; it would not hurt the water. Further reasons, he said as the water rose and fell the sand worked in; that was the trouble. 727 Q. 90. Was the well in the habit of getting too low for water before you fixed it? | A. I don’t know. Q. 91. Did it work well after you fixed it? A. Yes, sir. 9I—16 66 WILLIAM D. ANDREWS ET AL. VS. GEORGE HOVEY. Q. 92. Describe the kind of a rod or instrument you first drove into the bottom of the well. A. It was a hollow tube ; the perforations would extend up about 3 feet about | of an inch in diameter: there was 4 rows of holes and a point with a bulge. It was substantially the same as figure 1 In the patent issued to Khas 8. Hovey. | Q. 93. How far did you project that in the bottom of the well be- low the surface of the earth—in the bottom of the well ? A. About 4 foot. Q. 94. Then the whole length of the projection into the bottom of the well—from the surface of the earth in the bottom of the well— into the bottom of the well was about 4 feet ? A. Yes, sir. Q. 95. Well, after driving this or forcing it that far, what would you do then? A. Put on the sand pump and pump out the fine particles. Q. 96. Then what next did you do after pumping the fine par [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_1887_16%3A0. Public record. Not legal advice.