# Record and brief — Gideon Bantz, Appellant, vs. David Fantz et al > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Aper_scotus_gideon-bantz-appellant-vs-david-fantz-et-al_1881_330%3A0 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Record and brief - **Published:** January 1, 1881 ## Text —_—— a ei le eee eS — oe awh peace = t Pe ‘ / : ; ‘4 TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD. SUPREME COURT OF ThE UNTTED STATES. ff No. 3380-7 S&S GIDEON BANTZ, APPELLANT, VS. DAVID FRANTZ ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY. FILED NOVEMBER 9%, L878. : a i : , ‘ b ' 7 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 330. GIDEON BANIZ, APPELLANT, Vs. DAVID FRANTZ ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY. INDEX. Original. Print. 1 5 11 13 Marshal’s return; answer to bill 14 Demand for dismissal by respondent Replication lodged in clerk’s office Consent order to file replication, nunc pro tune Replication Notice to take testimony orally Order to extend time for taking testimony Stipulation Notice to respondents to take deposition Deposition of J. F. Troohbig Frank Millward Cross-examination of Frank Millward Deposition of David Frantz Frederick Kennel Stipulation Comniission Testimony of Gideon Bantz ......-.-.--..-... Certificate and commission l I] 13 14 17 17 II Testimony of Original. Print. ee ci Cae BbOMe bege een i ueie Sous ae TONE RT ACIP Rene epee ee a EE NEO E s EO OE Ee RN REN ODE ee Notice to respondents to take testimony ..-..--..--.--.- nese +0000 cote ewes Deposition of Exhibits A and B. . Extract from letters and bill for freight....-..-...--. : Exhibit Moses Thompson tile wrapper and contents........-....-....---- ides Wee Wateledeibinwe wide a a i ik a alas Se kee belie web ewes Bond for costs I ete ae iy ae. we see «@ “se @eneereeeeee + eee ee ewe we emlc Cle eee ermlc Cee eee twee Vw rrr er eC ele hUhUcrhhlUlc CU ee 43 45 47 39 41 43 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 1 1 Proceedings of the circuit court of the United States for the dis- trict of Kentucky, at a regular term begun and held at the Fed- era] court hall, in the city of Covington, on Monday, May 13th, 1878, and of our Independence the 102d year. Present, Hon. Bland Ballard, judge of the United States for the dis- trict of Kentucky. Be it remembered that heretofore, to wit, on May 4th, A. D. 1876, came the complainant, by his solicitors, Messrs. Hatch & Parkinson, and filed in the clerk’s office of our said court his bill of complaint, which said bill of complaint is in the words and figures following, to wit: Bill. Circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky. In equity. GIDEON BANTZ U8. DAVID FRANTZ, DAVID FRANTZ, JR., GEO. W. Frantz, and D. Frantz & Sons. To the honorable the judges of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky. Gideon Bantz, a citizen of the State of Maryland, and residing at Frederick City, in said State, brings this his bill of complaint against David Frantz, David Frantz, jr., and Geo. W. Frantz, partners, doing business in Louisville, in the State of Kentucky, and residents of said Louisville, State of Kentucky, and citizens of the said State of Kentucky, _and of the United States, and thereupon your orator complains and says: That heretofore, and before the 22d day of June, A. D. 1858, your orator was the original and first inventor of an improvement in boiler furnaces for burning wet fuel, fully described in the letters patent here- inafter mentioned, and which had not been known or used before his said invention, and which was not at the time of his application for a patent, as hereinafter mentioned, in public use or on sale with his con- sent or allowance. . And your orator, on information and belief, further shows unto your honors, that he being so-as aforesaid the first inventor and discoverer of said improvement, and being also a citizen of the United States, did, on June 22d, 1858, upon due application therefor, obtain letters 2 patent of the United States for said invention, in due form of law, under the seal of the Patent Office of the Unifed States, signed by the Secretary of the Interior, and countersigned by the Com- missioner of Patents of the United States, bearing date the day and year last aforesaid, whereby there was granted and secured to him, the said Gideon Bantz, his heirs, administrators, or assigns, or intended so to be, for the term of fourteen years from and after the date of said let- ters patent, the fall and exclusive right and liberty of making, con- structing, using and vending to others to be used, the said invetition and improvement, as set forth in said letters patent, which are now of record in the Patent Office of the United States, and by virtue whereof your orator became and now is the sole owner of all the rights and REC. 330—1 ees - AO te aecete wenn m2 ne owe eupnenngttimemenninetatts aatintieianciie. caaet han tee ERR Oe ope o : ; ; 2 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. privileges granted and secured, or intended to be granted and secured, in and by said letters-patent. And your orator further shows unto your honors, that he having for good and lawful cause surrendered said letters patent to the Commis- sioner of Patents, and having made due application therefor, and having in all things complied with the acts of Congress in such case made and provided, did, on the 6th day ot February, 1872, obtain new letters patent, being for ‘the same invention, for the re sidue ot said term, and which were marked Reissue No. 4751, and were issued in due form of law, under the seal of the Patent Office of the United States, signed by the Se cretary ot the Interior and countersigned by the Commissioner of Patents, and bear- ing date the day and year aforesaid, as by the said last mentioned let- ters patent, or a certified copy of the same, now in court ready to be produced, or by the copy of the same attached to this bill and marked Schedule A, will more‘tully and at large appear. And your orator turther shows unto your honors, that on or about 20th day of Mareh, 1872, he made application tor the extension of the term of said last mentioned reissued letters patent, No. 4731, for seven years trom and after June 22d, 1872, and after full examination by the Commissioner of Patents, the extension was granted, and said letters patent were, by the ceruticate of said Commissioner, declared to have the same effect as lf originally granted for twenty-one years. And your orator further shows unto your honors, that by virtue of the premises he became, and now is, the sole and exclusive owner of said reissued and extended letters patent No. 4731, and the inventions and improvements deseri bed therein, and of all the rights and privileges granted and secured, or intended to be granted and secured, thereby. And that since he became the owner thereof as aforesaid, he has invest- ed and expended large sums of money, and has been to great trouble in and about said invention, and for the purpose of carrying on the business of making and vending said improvement in boiler furnaces for burning wet fuel, and making the same profitable to himself and useful to the public; and that the said invention has been and is of great benefit and advantage ; and that many persons have beep licensed by your orator to use said improvements, to the great advantage of the public ; and thatthe public have generally acknowledged and acquiesced in the aforesaid rights of your orator; and your orator believes that he will realize and receive large gains and profits theretrom, if infringe- ment by said defendants and their confederates shall be prevented. And your orator further shows unto your honors, that after the ex- tension aforesaid, to wit, about November 22d, 1872, he filed a bill in equity in the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Ohio, against Jacob Elsas and Samuel Pritz, of Cincinnati, Ohio; that the defendants in that case appeared by counsel, and filed an an- swer, alleging among other things, that the reissued letters patent were void because they were for a different invention from the original; be- cause new matter was introduced therein; that the patented inventions were in public use tor more than two years prior to the application for the letters patent; that the said invention had been invented and used by the following persons prior to the alleged invention of your orator, to wit: J.C. Baum, at his chemical factory, then situated on Branch street, in the rear of No. 53 Dunlap street, in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio. Michael Eekert, who resides at No. 338 Bank street, in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, at his tannery, at No. 534 Central-av enue, in said city of Cincinnati. 2 RO ae, te Patina BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 3- ty z. 3 F. Bodman, of Cincinnati, Ohio, at his tannery, at No. 623 West t Sixth street, in said city. i i D. H. Taylor & Co., at their tannery, in said city of Cincinnati. That a large mass of testimony was taken in said suit; that ample time was given to the defendauts to make a full defense to said actions; a that the defendants were assisted in their defense by a large number of ; tanuers who were unlawfully using furnaces similar to those of defend- ants in said case; and that said tanners contrivuted to the payment of the expenses of said suit; that said case came on to final hearing. on pleadings and proofs in June, 1874, before honorable Philip Swing, jndge of said court, and was fully argued by counsel for both parties, and after full consideration, the court found that the said reissued letters patent, No. 4731, and the extension thereof, were good and valid; and that the g defendants had infringed the same, and granted a perpetual injunction against the defendants, and directed an account of protits and damages to be taken, as, by a copy of the decree in said case hereto annexed, aud marked Schedule 6B, will fully appear. And your orator further shows unto your honors that upon the com- ing in of the master’s report, which found that complainant in said case i was entitled to recover from defendants the sum of $500, as the sum at which the complainant licenses parties to use each turnace con- structed in accordance with his said patent, a final decree was entered for the complainant by the honorable Philip B. Swing, judge of said sae win adjudging : Ist. That the reissued and extended letters patent, No. 4731, are good and valid in law. 2nd. That the defendants bad infringed the same. ) 3rd. That the defendants pay to complainant the sum of $500, and also “ that the defendants pay the costs of the suit; which decree is here in court ready to be produced, and that said judgment has been satisfied, and no appeal taken. * And your orator further shows unto your honors, that the tanners in and around Cincinnati using furnaces for burning wet fuel, substantially such as that enjoined in the said suit, have aequiesved in said decree, and have paid license fees to your orator for the use of their said fur- naces, among whom arethe following: E. ms D. Nepper, Lang & Wan- ner, G. Rv Martin & Sons, Louis C. Bardes, J. F. Forbus & Co., Gottlieb Holder, D. H. Taylor & Co., J. & J. G saan G. ©. Spiegel, Scheu & Leist, H. Rasche & Son, H. Freiberg, A. Steigler & Co., Louis Ballauf, Meier & Lockwood, Michael Eckert, W. W. Snodgrass & Sons, Jacob Dewald, as have alsothe Dayton Leather & Collar Co., of Dayton, Ohio, and Curme, Dunn & Co., of Richmond, Ind. " Yet the said detendants, well knowing the premises, and the rights secured to your orator aforesaid, but contriving to injure your orator, aud to deprive him of the benefits and advantages which might, and otherwise would, accrue unto him from said invention, after the, issuing of the reissued letters patent No. 4751, as atoresaid, and before the com- mencement of this suit, did, as your orator is informed apd believes, without the license or allowance, and against the will of your orator, and in violation of his rights and ip infringement of the aforesaid reis- : sued letters patent, extended as aforesaid, unlawfally and wrongfully, and in defiance of the rights of your orator, make, construct, and use the said invention, aud did make, construct, and use boiler furnaces made according to, and employing and containing said invention, and that they still continue so todo; and that they are threatening to make the aforesaid boiler furnaces in large quantities aud to use the same, and a sek ete ee ws 4 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. that said manufacture and ase of said boiler furnaces has been and is without the license or consent of your orator, and against his will, and in violation of his rights, and is an infringement of the aforesaid reissued letters patent No. 4731, so granted and extended as aforesaid, and that said unlawful acts and infringements have been committed by said de- fendant with a full knowledge of the rights of your orator, and in defi- ance of bis rights. And your orator farther shows unto ,our honors that the furnaces so made and used as aforesaid, by the defendants herein, are substantially the same as those which were made and used by the defetidants in the. suit at Cincinnati, heretofore mentioned in this bill. 4 Allin defiance of the rights acquired by and secured to your orator, as aforesaid, and to his great and irreparable loss and in- jury,and by which he has been, and still is being deprived of great gains and profits which he might, and otherwise would have obtained, | but which have been received and enjoyed, and are being received and enjoyed by the said defendants, by and through their aforesaid unlawful acts and doings. And your orator furtber shows unto your honors, on information and belief, that said defendants used said furnacesto a great extent, andare continuing to use the same extensively in business, and threatening to make more of the same, and have made and realized large profits aud advantages therefrom; but to what extent, and how much exactly, your orator does not know, and prays a discovery thereof; and your orator says that the use of the said invention by said defendants, and their preparation for and avowed determination to continne the same, and their other aforesaid unlawful acts in distegard and in defiance of the rights of your orator, bave the effect to and do encourage and induce others to venture to infringe said patent in disregard of vour orator’s rights. ; And your orator further shows unto your honors, that be has caused notice to be given to said defendants of said infringements, and of the rights of your orator in the premises, and requested them to desist and retrain therefrom ; but they have di- regarded said notice, and refused to desist from said infringements, and still coutinue to make and use said boiler furnaces for burning wet tuel. And forasmuch as your orator can have no adequate relief, except in this court; tothe end, theretore, that the said defendants may, if they coin, show why your orator should not have the relief hereby prayed, and may, according to their best and atmost knowledge, remembrance, in- formation, and belief, full, true, direct, and perfect answers make to the premises, and to all the several matters hereinbetore stated and charged, as fully and particularly as if severally and separately inter- rogated as to each and every of said matters, and may be compelled to account for and pay to your orator the profits by them acquired, and three times the damages suffered by your orator from the aforesaid un- lawful acts. Aud yout orator prays that said defendants, David Frantz, David Krantz, jr., Geo. W. Frautz, and D. Frantz & Sous, Uieir servants, agents, attorneys, and workmen, and each and every of them, may be restrained and enjoined, provisionally and perpetually, by the order and injunction of this honorable court, from directly or indirectly mak- ing, constructing, using, vending, Celivering, working, or putting into practice, operation, or use, or in anywise counterfeiting or imitative the said invention, or any part thereot, or any bolier turnace tor buru- ing wet fuel wade in accordance therewiti, or like or similar to those oo — . = - Z. ' true of his own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated on BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 5 which they have heretofore male; and that the said defendants may be decreed to pay the costs of this suit; and that your orator 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 orator the writ of in- junction, as well provisional as perpetual, issuing out of and under the seal of this honorable court, commanding, enjoining, and restraining the said defendants, David Frantz, David Frantz, jr., Geo. W. Frantz, and D. Frantz & Sons, their servants, agents, attorneys, and workmen, and each and every of them, as is hereinbefore in that behalf prayed. May it please your honors to grant unto your orator the writ of sab poena issuing out of and under the seal of this honorable court, direct- ed to the said defendants, David Frantz, David Frantz, jr., Geo. W. Frantz, and D. Frantz & Sons, commanding them 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 them. And your orator will ever pray, ete. GIDEON BANTZ. HATCH & PARKINSON, Complainant’s Solicitors. HATCH & PARKINSON, Counsel. 5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) District of Maryland, ss : On this 13th day of April, 1876, before me personally appeared Gideon Bantz, the above named complainant, who, being by me duly sworn, de- poses and says that he has read the foregoing bill of complaint sub- scribed by him, and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is information and belief, and as to those matters he believes it to be true. [SEAL. | B. LYON RODGERS, U. S. Commissioner for Maryland. The United States of America to all to whom these letters patent shall SCHEDULE A. come: ' Whereas Gideon Bantz, of Frederick City, Maryland, has alleged that he has invented a new and useful improvement in furnaces tor burning ' wet fuel (tor which letters patent were issued to him June 22d, 1858, which said letters having been surrendered, the same have been can- celled, and new letters ordered to issue to him on an amended specifica- tion), and has made oath that he is a citizen of the United States; that he verily believes that he is the original and first inventor or dis- | ecoverer of the said improvement, and that the same hath not, to his knowledge and belief, been previously known or used; has paid into the Treasury of the United States the sum of thirty dollars, and presented a petition to the Commissioner of Patents, praying that a patent may be issued therefor : These are, theretore, to grant unto the said Gideon Bantz, his execu- tors, administrators, or assigns, for the term of fourteen years from the twenty-second day of June, one thousand eight hundred and fiftv- eRe RARE mE Ht Se ams coe eee scceinemnaaticnininessieesoetlasateiaatiahtant tein NER ATLL ELAINE OT TAN = ports pores ee ee FORO ree pleas RB re ee Ree A NR EAE ER NORE NT ee 6 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. eight, the full and exclusive right and liberty of making, using, and vending to others to be used, the said improvement, a description whereof is given in the annexed schedule and made a part of these presents. In testimony whereof I have caused these letters to be made patent and the seal of the Patent Office to be hereunto affixed. Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this sixth day of Feb- rnary, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy- two, and of the Independence of the United States of the ninety-sixth. B. R. COWEN, Acting Secretary of the Interior. Countersigned and sealed with the seal of the Patent Office. [L. S.] M. D. LEGGETT, Commissioner of Patents. 4731. UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE. Gideon Bantz, of Frederick, Maryland. Improvement in boiler fur- naces for burning wet fuel. Specifications forming part of letters patent No. 26616, dated June 22, 1858, reissue No. 4731, dated February 6, 1872. To all whom it may concern : Be it known that I, Gideon Bantz, of Frederick City, in the county of Frederick, in the State of Maryland, have invented a new and useful improvement in furnaces for burning wet fuel; and Ido hereby declare that the following is a full, clear, and exact description of the same, reference being had to the accompanying drawing forming a part of this specification, and in which— Fig. 1 represents a longitudinal vertical section of a furnace embrac- ing my invention, and showing its application to a steam-boiler. 6 Figure 2 represents a transverse vertical section through the fire-chamber in the plane indicated by the line «a of Fig. lL. Figure 3 represents a transverse section through one of the reverber- atory chambers in the plane indieated by the line y y of Fig. 1. Similar letters of reference in each of the several figures indicate cor- responding parts. To enable others skilled in the art to make and use my invention, I proceed to describe its construction and operation. A A are two arched fire-chambers, arranged side by side, furnished with grates a a, and having ash-pits B B provided below the said grates. These fire-chambers are not placed beneath the boiler H, but directly in front thereof, and longitudinally therewith. They may, however, be placed at one side of the boiler, and at an angle to it. Each is provided with the usual door b, but these are only used for lighting the fires ; and the ash-pits are provided with doors ¢ to regulate the supply of air through the grates, and permit the clearing out of ashes. In the top of each chamber there are openings d d for supplying the fuel to the furnaces. The fire-chambers are covered with a flat floor built over the arches that the fuel may be wheeled to the feeders in barrows, or brought in any other convenient manner. This floor and the fire-cham- ber arches are about eighteen inches thick from the crown of the fire- BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 7 chamber to the top surface, and on either side of the feeding openings d I torm, between the arches and the floor, dead chambers da’, which are fitted with ashes or other material, which will prevent the heat of the ashes from penetrating through the floor, and thus the latter is always kept cool for the engineer and workmen, which is a great advantage in this form of furnace. The dimensions of the fire-chambers which I have found to produce the best results with wet tan, are, in height, three feet, four feet wide, and eight feet long; and the lids of the feeders should be set in the openings d, near the crown of the arch, so as to keep the heat in the chamber as much as possible. The boiler is supported directly upon the rear wall of the furnace, and is outside of and elevated above the fire-chamber, so that the heat issa- ing therefrom is caused to impinge directly upon the boiler. This is practically the successful feature of the furnace, the results and benefits of which have not hitherto been attained, as the boiler not only receives the heat from the rear wall of the furnace, but the entire heat of the fire- chamber is concentrated directly upon it in a chamber where the com- bustion is intensified. The rear end of the boiler is supported upon the wall which forms the dividing flue E, and the heat from the reverbera- tory chamber is held by said wall close under the rear end of the boiler. At the rear end of each fire-chamber there is a throat-like aperature e, communicating directly with the reservoir C, which is built of brick, and lined with fire-brick directly under the front portion of the boiler, and which has a concave bottom m, and convex back n, which are con- structed in a cima-reversa shape. By having the bottom and back of the reservoir formed in this way, the throats e are not partially closed up, as they would be if the bottom was flat and set inclined. And besides this, the heated products of combustion are made to hug the bottom of the boiler, and as the draught is at this point, the perfect combustion of partially ignited gasses is efiected. The convex back of the reservoir terminates in, and serves as a bridge-wall, and has a concave top, so formed as to leave a space o _ of but three or four inches between it and the boiler, as shown in Fig. 3 of the drawing. In the rear of the bridge-wall f there is a series of re- verberatory chambers D D D, two, three, or more, one behind the other, the series extending nearly as far as the rear end of the boiler, and the said chambers being separated from each other by bridge-walls gg, and each chamber being provided with one or more doors fh, in either or both sides, for the purpose of admitting air in small quantities to com- plete the combustion of the gasses from the fire-chambers, or a greater supply to check the draught. 7 The combustion-reservoir is furnished with a door or doors, h’, to admit air therein, directly in contact with the products of com- bustion from the fire-chambers, to increase their combustion at the point of the greatest heat beneath the boiler. At the rear of the hindmost reverberatory chamber there is a wall, g, like the bridge-wall g g, behind which there is a diving or drop-flue, E, leading to the chimney, and which communicates with the reverberatory chambers by means of a small opening in the wall g/ directly beneath the rear end of the boiler. This arrangement of the diving-flue serves two highly important and advantageous purposes, viz: To cause the heat to hug the rear portion of the boiler, and to extinguish the sparks from the furnace; but the manner in which it effects the retention of the heat beneath the rear portion of the boiler causes the latter to be heated nearly uniformly throughout its entire length, a result which could not be attained if the 8 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. heat was allowed to pass off rapidly at the rear of the flue beneath the boiler, as heretofore. This diving-flue, E, is formed by means of two walls, g' and g’, the latter serving the additional purpose of a support for the rear end of the boiler, and the wall g' constituting the rear side of the rear reverberatory chamber D, the chimney or smoke stack being formed outside of the rear wall of the diving-flue; and the two com- municating some distance beneath the boiler, as shown in Fig. 1 of the drawing. The operation of the furnace is as follows: Only the rear portion of the fire-chambers having been filled with wet fuel through the rear feeders d, a fire of dry fuel is kindled in their front portions, the doors of the fire-chambers are closed, and the doors of the ash-pits B partially opened for a draught. The fire from the dry fuel soon heats the fire-, chambers, and also dries and ignites thetan. The hot ashes falling into the ash-pits heat the same, and soon the whole mass of wet fuel will be- come heated and a mass of smouldering fire. The fire-chambers being heated to a very high degree, the doors of the ash-pits are nearly closed, and the chambers filled with wet fuel, which piles up on the grates in a conical form, leaving but comparatively a thin layer all around the edges of the grate, so as to allow of a draught through the grate and to burn more readily. The products of combustion pass from the fire chambers into the res- ervoir or chamber C in the rear, and under the front end of the boiler, and to extinguish the sparks from the furnace ; but the manner in which it effects the retention of the heat beneath the rear portion of the boiler, where it comes into contact with a certain amount of atmospheric air, admitted through the doors h’, and produces the most intense heat in their union, effecting a more complete consumption of the products of combustion. This union takes place in the reservoir directly under the front of the boiler, and is, therefore, utilized at the point where it gives out its heat directly upon the same; and without this union of atmos- pheric air and gases at this point the largest amount of heat would be lost, because it could nowhere else be concentrated with such effect upon the boiler outside of the fire-chambers. The products of this combustion pass over the bridge-walls into and through the several reverberatory chambers, in each of which a portion of their heat is absorbed by contact with the boiler, and finally they descend the flae E to the chimney. The effect of the principal portion of my invention, which consists in the arrangement and location of the reservoir ©, with respect to the boiler and the fire-chambers, is, that the products of combustion and heat are caused to leave the fire-chambers through the throats ee in immediate and direct contact with the boiler, and the said chambers and reservoir are consequently caused to be heated to an intense degree, and to give out that intense heat upon the boiler without passing through an intermediate flue, while, at the same time, the boiler occupies no space within or above the fire-chambers. A very important feature ir this furnace is the location of the combustion reservoir above the fire-chambers, as thereby the products of combustion are not forced out of a natural draught, but merely follow their natural tendency to rise in said reservoir. 8 The door or doors f’ in the combustion-reservoir C serve to admit any desired quantity of atmospheric air to this reservoir or chamber, and the amount admitted may be, as is required by differ- ent circumstances, regulated by the opening or closing of said doors; and thereby affords not only a very convenient, but a very durable and cheap means of effecting this. At night, or any time when no steam is - BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 9 required from the boiler, or when high heat is not required, the two front feeders should be filled up with fresh fuel, the ash-pit doors closed up, and one or more of the doors Ah in the reverberatory chambers opened to stop the draught beneath the boiler, and the fire will smoulder and keep in such a degree of heat that on the doors hh being closed, and the ash-pit doors being opened, the fires will instantly burn bright, and the boiler heated by the furnaces may be at once ready for opera- tion. The doors hh in the reverberatory chambers, besides being used to admit cool air in sufficient quantity to prevent draught and keep the fire damped, serve also to admit air in more limited quantities to effect the combustion in the reverberatory chambers of any inflam’able gasses that may pass the combustion chamber C. I do not claim a furnace for burning wet fuel, broadly, nor the use of a series of fire-chambers connecting with the common flue, arranged between the furnace and the boiler, as I am well aware that this has been done before. Having described my invention, I claim— 1. In a furnace for burning wet fuels, having two or more single fire- chambers not arranged under the boiler, the combustion-chamber or reservoir C, arranged above the top of said fire-chambers, and located directly under the front end of the boiler, essentially as described. 2. The cima-reversa bottom m n of the combustion-chamber or reser- voir C, in combination with the narrow throats e of the separate fire- chambers, and the narrow exit flue o of the bridge-walls /, for the pur- pose essentially as described. 3. In combination with the combustion-chamber or reservoir ©, ar- ranged and located as described, I claim the side door or doors h’, for the admission of atmospheric air, for the purpose described. 4. In combination with a series of fire-chambers A, and the combus- tions-chamber or reservoir C, located and arranged directly beneath the - front end of the boiler, and above the crown of said fire-chamber, I claim a series of reverberatory chambers, D, provided with side doors h, and a diving flue, E, at the rear end of the boiler to hold the heat beneath the same throughout its entire length, and to arrest and deaden the sparks as described. 5. In a farnace for burning wet fuels in which the fire-chambers are not arranged under the. boiler, I claim the arrangement of the boiler upon the rear wall of the furnace and the rear wall of the diving-flue E, for the purpose of obtaining the full advantage of the heat of the walls of the furnace, and of the diving-flue, as described. 6. In a furnace for burning wet fuels, having a flat top, and supplied through openings therein, I claim the dead-chambers, arranged between the floor and the arches of the fire-chambers, for the purpose of main- taining the top of the furnace cool for the workingmen, as described. GIDEON BANTZ., Witnesses : A. E. H. JOHNSON, ALEX’R A. C. KLAUCKE, 10 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 9 Gideon Bantz. No. 4731. a + | a aed Sia - // TT; " PTT, ae pa Sen dae Chaeee ne uel l 1 2 A shihs Fic. |. WM ttt ~ ¢ ow Inventor: Witnesses: | Wa. J.. PEYTON, JOUN G. TRINE GIDEON BANTZ, By JOHNSON, KLAUCKE & CO., His Attorneys. eRe ee Nm 10 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 11 Gideon Bantz. Improvement in boiler furnaces for burning wet fuel. No. 4731. Reissued Feb. 6, 1872. Fie. 2. + WA Wg SK NdNdN dd’ Nd Nd’ \N \ > SS S \N avavayAUayaqagegay : Oh) » DAVID FRANTZ & Sons. § The joint answer of David Frantz, sr., Geo. W. Frantz, and David Frantz,*jr., composing the firm of D. Frantz & Sons, to the bill of complaint exhibited against them by Gideon Bantz, in this court. Filed July 3rd, 1876. These respondents, reserving to themselves all advantages from the many defects of the bill, for answer to the same, or to such parts thereof as they are advised they should make answer to, say; It is not true, as in the bill alleged, that the complainant was the original and first inventor of the improvement claimed by him, or of any of those parts, features, or ‘‘ claims” thereof, as are relied on by complainant in this suit, or as have any resemblance tothe furnace used by these respondents, and which are said to be infringed herein. The only claim of this sort is the first claim, and this is fully anticipated by the patent granted by the United States to Moses Thompson, on the 10th day of April, 1855, No, 12678, for improvement in furnaces for burning wet fuel. And as far as complainant’s invertion consists in having a deep chamber, rather than the shallow flue as described and made by Moses Thompson, said A. M. Taylor & Co., or H. W. Taylor & Co., predecessors of these respondents in the tannery busi- ness at the present place, made and publicly used such a deep chamber as early as 1857, by digging out the earth in the flue of the patent fur- nace put up for them by Moses Thompson’s agent. As to the use of side doors, it will be shown hereafter that they cannot be used for the CO Nt Rails He se me: masa re eee amenemenee NED cemmen amass owen ane. nppeete a Cora em §.« opel! es BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 15 purpose stated in the patent; but for the purpose of taking out ashes, they were in the public use long before complainant’s pretended 15 invention, among others in the boiler furnace heated with coal which was in use by the predecessors of these respondents at their tannery in Louisville, long before 1855, and in the Thompson fur- nace which they put up, as hereinafter stated. A certified copy of the latter patent is filed herewith, marked Exhibit A A. These respondents further say that the very furnace from the use of which they are sought to be enjoined herein was built for them lately, only in place of older ones worn out, from time to time; one of which Moses Thompson had built at their tannery in the city of Louisville (then belonging to the respondent David Frantz, sr., and one A. M. Tay- lor, partuers, as A. M. Taylor & Co.), long before the grant or issual of the plaintiffs original patent. These respondents admit the facts about the issual and surrender of complainant’s original patent, and the issual of the new patent in lieu thereof as set forth in the bill, and they file herewith as Exhibit B B, a certitied copy of the original patent to Gideon Bantz of June 22nd, 1858; but they insist that on the face of the papers s the reissue is unlawful and void. Further answering, these respondents deny that the patent is useful or profitable to complainant, otberwise than that he uses it unjustly and corruptly, to extort the price of licenses from many tanners who find such payment cheaper than the cost of defending unfounded suits. It is also denied that the patent is useful. On the contrary, furnaces really constructed on complainant’s patent would be worthless—none is actu- ally anywhere constructed in accordance with his specifications, not even by those who have paid him for a license. These respondents admit the filing of a suit by the complainant against Elsas & Pritz, in the circuit court of the southern district of Ohio, and the proceedings therein, as in the bill of complaint set forth; but they object to the partial record exhibited with the bill being read or consid- ered. Aid they deny that the defendants in that snit were agsisted by — other tanners in making their defense or in paying the expense thereof ; but on the contrary, for the want of such assistance they neglected and abandoned the defense of the case, and its merits never came fully and fairly before the circuit court for the southern district of Ohio. For this reason of want of assistance, Elsas & Pritz spent only a small sum in the defense, wholly: disproportionate to the work in such a case, and took no pains in the preparation of theirdefense. Although they set up the want of novelty of complainant’s patent in their answer, they failed to give the name and residence of Jacob Magly, who had made, and of Herman Rasche, who bad been using, a similar furnace in 1857; and the evidence to that effect was afterwards ruled out on that ground on com- plainant’s demand. And though the reissue might be unlawful on the face of the claims in it and in the original patent, and though this point was raised by defendant’s counsel in argument, the court could not pass upon it for want of an allegation to that effect in the answer. All this appears from the printed brief of complainant, filed in the cause. The counsel for defendant also failed to take proof on the question of in- fringement, but bound himself by admissions to the plaintiff’s proof; though be could easily bave proved that the furnace of Elsas & Pritz did not in any way infringe on claim 3 of complainant’s reissue. These respondents are informed and believe, and so state, that the de- cree in the cause of Gideon Bantz against Elsas & Pritz was really ull md R a “ phe a et NN I OL LE ALLL LOL LIE, pee DEAE ROMER MEI I ga ag rs ARIS oN cen dane ae ee maces 16 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. agreed upon between the parties ; and the defense, in fact, abandoned before the decisions of the court were delivered. Further answering, these respondents deny that all of the firms of tanners named in the bill of complaint paid the complainant for licenses, but admitting that some of them did, they say that the complainant pressed his license upon others for nothing, merely to prevent any liti- gation in earnest, by which the validity or extent of his patent might be endangered. Those of the firms of tanners who did »eccept and pay for licenses did so under the advice of counsel, who told them that the complainant had no right or case against them, but that it would be cheaper for them to compromise with him in that way than to carry on even a successful litigation with him. 16 for all of which reasons these respondents insist that the de- cree in the case of Bantz vs. Elsas & Pritz, and the submission of some other tanners in Cincinnati and its neighborhood, should not be drawn into precedent againstthem, nor should it bedecmed tostrengthen the complainant’s right to a provisional injunction. They insist and aver that the patent sued upon is, both for want of “ novelty and usefulness, as shown in this answer, null and void. They deny that they ever made, constructed, or used the complain- ants’ pretended inventions, or thing described ‘in his patents; or that they ever made, used, or constructed boiler furnaves made according to the same; and they deny that they threaten to make the aforesaid boiler furnaces in large quantities, or in anv other quantities, or even to make any boiler furnaces of any kind. These respondents are tanners, not furnace builders, and, having one furnace already, do not stand in need of another. They file with this answer correct drawings, plans, side elevations, and sections of their furnace and boiler, prepared by an expert archi- tect and engineer, and, not knowing the details of the build of Elsas & Pritz’s furnace, they neither deny nor admit the plaintiff’s allegation, that their (respondents’) farnace is substantially like that of Elsas & Pritz. The drawing thus filed is made an exhibit hereto, and marked BB. injury, but on the contrary aver that by ieasen of the want of the use- fulness of his patent he could not have suffered any injury at all, there being many kinds of unpatented furnaces in use as good as, or much better than, that supposed to be covered by complainant’s patent. These respondents deny that they now use, or ever did use a furnace like that of plaintiff’s patent, or that they have or could have realized any profits from the same. They admit that the plaintiff notified them of the pretended infringement, and that they disregarded such notice as wholly impertinent. And, having fully answered, they pray to be hence dismissed with their tull costs, already in this behalf most wrongfully sustained. ) D. FRANTZ, Sr. D. FRANTZ, JR. GEO. W. FRANTZ. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, State of Kentucky, to wit: David Frantz, sr., on his oath, says that the statements of the above answer, as far as they are made on his own knowledge respectively, are true, and as far as they are made on the information of others, he be- lieves them to be true. DAVID FRANTZ, Sr. They deny that the complainant has, by all this, suffered any loss or. aint tie in ee Eee BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. : 17 Subscribed and sworn to befure me by D. Frantz, sr., this 23rd day of June, 1876, JAMES A. BEATTIE, Com. U.S. Cir. Court, Dist. of Ky. Geo. W. Frantz and David Frantz, jr., on their oath, say that the statements of the above answer, as far as they are made on their own knowledge respectively, are true, and as far as they are made on the in- formation of others, they believe them to be true. GEO. W. FRANTZ. D. FRANTZ, JR. Subscribed and sworn to before me by Geo. W. Frantz and D. Frantz, jr., this 26th day of June, 1876. JAMES A. BEATTIE, Com. U.S. Cir. Court, Dist. of Ky. 17 And on Saturday, August 19th, A. D. 1876, the following order was entered in the clerk’s office —_ BANTZ d D. Susuen ET AL. \ This day came the defendants, by John M. Harlan and Lewis N. Dembitz, esq’r’s, their attorneys, and filed demand, in accordance with rule 66 in equity, a dismissal of the above cause. And on Monday, August 2lst, 1876, the following order was made, Viz: GIDEON BANTZ ! vs. D. FRANTZ ET AL. \ This day came the complainant, by Messrs. Hatch & Parkinson, his solicitors, and lodged in the clerk’s office his replication herein. And on Friday, January 26th, A. D. 1877, the following order was made, viz: GIDEON BANTZ v8. DAVID FRANTZ ET AL. Upon motion of the complainant it is ordered that the replication in the above-entitled cause, lodged with the clerk August 21st, 1876, 18 be filed nunc pro tune as of the date at which it was due. We consent to the above. : | ! HATCH & PARKINSON, Sols for Complainants. LEWIS DEMBITZ, Sol. for Defendants. REC. 330—2 18 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. The replication above referred to is in the words and figures following, to wit: | Replication. Circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky (at Cov- ington). In equity. GIDEON BANTZ } ve. > No. 793. DAVID FRANTZ ET AL. The replication of the above-named complainant to the answer of the above-named defendants. This repliant saviug and reserving to himself, now and at all times hereafter, all and all manner of benefit and advantage of exception which may be had or taken to the manifold insufticiencies of said answer, for replication thereunto, says that be will aver, maintain, and prove his bill of complaint to be true, certain, and sufficient in law to be answered unto; and that the said answer of the said defendants is uncertain, un- true, and insufticient to be replied unto by this repliant; without this, that any other matter or thing whatsoever in the said answer contained, material or effectual in the law to be replied unto and not herein and hereby well and sufficiently replied unto, confessed and avoided, trav- ersed or denied, is trne; all which matters and things this repliant is and will be ready to aver, maintain, and prove as this honorable court shall direet, and humbly prays as in and by his said bill he has already prayed. HATCH & PARKINSON, Solicitors for Complainant. Notice to take testimony orally. Circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky. In equity. : GIDEON BANTZ } vs, > No. 793. DAVID FRANTZ ET AL. 4 The respondents will take notice that the complainant desires that all the testimony in the above named cause shall be taken orally, under the 67th rule in equity, as amended. HATCH & PARKINSON, Solicitors for Complainant. Service acknowledged this Jan. 18th, 1877. LEWIS N. DEMBITZ, Solicitor for Defendants. 19 And at a term of our said court, held for its December term, A. D. 1876, and on a day of said term continued and held, to wit, on January 26th, 1577, the following order was made, viz: —— BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 19 GIDEON BANTZ U8. DAVID FRANTZ ET AL. Upon motion of the complainant it is ordered that the time for taking testimony be extended to the third Monday in April. The witnesses, if examined at Cincinnati or Louisville, may be examined orally; if at other places, by written interrogatories and cross-interrogatories. Here follows copy of stipulation between parties. Stipulation. Circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky. In equity. GIDEON BANTZ ) U8. DAVID FRANTZ ET ax. J It is stipulated and agreed by and between the parties to the cause above named, that any notary public selected by either party may act as examiper under the 67th rule in equity, HATCH & PARKINSON, Solicitors for Complainant. LEWIS N. DEMBITZ, Solicitor for Defendants. Here follows copy of depositions of parties. 20 Circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky. In equity. GIDEON BANTZ } vs. ‘ DAVID FRANTZ ET AL. S The respondents will take notice that the complainant will examine witnesses in the above named cause, under the 67th rule in equity as amended, before competent authority, examiner, at the office ot Hatch & Parkinson, No. 8 West 3rd street, Cincinnati, Ohio, on Thursday, the 14th day of September, 1876, beginning said examination at 9 o’clock a. m. of said day, and continuing from day to day until completed. HATCH & PARKINSON, Solicitors for Compl't. 21 Depositions. Circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky (at Cov- ington). In equity. GIDEON BANTZ, COMPLAINANT, } : 793 vs. No. 793. ra D. FRANTZ ET AL., DEFENDANTS. 9 Exdmination of witnesess on behalf of the complainant under the 67th rule in equity. as amended, pursuant to the annexed notice. 20 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. Present, Mr. R. H. Parkinson, for the complainant; and for the defendants. | By request of parties, it is ordered that these depositions be taken by question and answer. Mr. JEREMIAH F. TwouiG, of Cincinnati, Obio, a witness produced on behalf of the complainant, being first duly sworn, deposeth and saith, in answer to interrogatories propounded to him by R. H. Parkinson, Esq., of counsel for the complainant, as follows: Question 1. State your name, age, residence, and occupation. Answer 1. My name is Jeremiah FI. Twobig; I am nineteen years old; Llive in Cincinnati, and I am a clerk. | (). 2. State whether at any time during the past year you have been in the tannery of D. Frantz & Sons, at Louisville, Kentucky, and, if so, whether you observed the furnace used by them in said tannery. A. 2. I wasin that tannery on the 27th day of last January, and have observed the furnace used by them, and did so then; this furnace was being used at the time I was there. (). 3. Please describe fully the construction and operation of said furnace. A. 3. The furnace was a double furnace, having two boilers, which were not located directly over the fire chamber, but were in front of the furnace. The fire chambers had six holes to admit the wet tan, which was hauled over and dumped into them on top of the five chambers, and these holes were allon top of thechamber. ‘The flames passed from the fire chamber up through a throat-like aperture which was inclined, and thence under the boilers, and then the smoke came through the boilers again in a flue, and then passed up into the stack at the front of the furnace. The boilers rested on the rear wall of the furnace, I think. There were four holes right under the boiler, opening on the outside of the furnace and on each side of the furnace, which I was told by a work- man were for the purpose of cleaning out the soot, and that they didn’t use them for any other purpose but for that. There were four holes right under the grate bars, or at the side of the fire chamber, which were open from the outside and were used for the purpose of creating a draft and cleaning out the ashes, etc., that settled there. There was also a door at the back end of the furnace, from which a person could see the entire length of the flue under the boilers. Wet tan was the only fuel used while I was there; I saw no other fuel about the place, and the fireman said they only used other fuel when they went to light the fire and this they did only once a week. I madea sketch of this furnace as I saw it, and that sketch is on file in this case with my original affidavit. I now attach a copy of that sketch, also made by me, and make it a part of this my deposition, and mark it Exhibit Franz Furnace. I would also say that the walls of the furnace were quite thick, so far as I could see by looking up through the open doors at the mouth of the fire chamber, and there was a wall, as I was told by a workman, which divided the fire chamber into two compartments, but I couldn’t see that clearly, as the furnace was in full blast. @. 4. Describe more particularly the location of the combustion cham- ber with reference to the boiler? 23 A. 4, Well, the combustion chamber was right back of the fire chamber, and directly under the front end of the boiler, and com- municated directly with the fire chamber, by means of an aperture for that purpose. The fire chamber was built some six feet «down ina pit cut into the ground, and on the level of the ground above it -y 4. et Eg AE EE, EW Nt ay ME BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 21 were the holes where the wet tan was put in, and the boilers were not over the fire chamber but were to the back of it, and the front end of the boiler was about over the rear wall of the fire chamber, and the boilers were almost on the level of the ground, but a little raised from the ground so as to be on the bottom a little above the level of the tops of the holes for feeding the fire with wet tan. This is as I remember it. Q@. 5. Please state how correctly the drawing to which you have re- ferred represents the furnace of D. Frantz & Sons, and state particularly what is represented by the parts marked with letters of the alphabet. Exhibit Frantz Furnace. LP LLL LLL LOL LLL LOL LL LLL LLL, ELLE AL A Breet > 7 - a 4 Antindas Kt y ee ete . Z , 4 ¥ : i ; 4p DAVID FRANTZ ET ax. § It is hereby stipulated that the above may be treated as a correct copy of the specification of which it purports to be, and may be so treated without further proof, subject to any corrections counsel may hereafter prove. HATCH & PARKINSON, Solicitors for Complainant. LEWIS N. DEMBITZ, Solicitor for Defendants. Certificate. STATE :-OF MARYLAND, County of Frederick, to wit: I, Henry Williams, a notary public in and for the county and State aforesaid, duly commissioned and qualified, the commissioner named in the annexed commission, in the case of Gideon Bantz vs. D. Frantz et al., in the circuit court, Kentucky district, United States of America, do hereby certify that I opened said commission on the 29th day of March, A. D. 1877, at the house of Gideon Bantz, in Frederick, Maryland, and then aud there appeared betore me on behalf of complainant, Gideon Bantz, a witness of lawful age, who, being by me first duly sworn to make true answers, did answer as follows the annexed interrogatories. In testimony whereof 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal this 29th day of March, A. D. 1377. (SEAL, | 2 HENRY WILLIAMS, Notary Public, Frederick, Maryland. = RED we UR RT RATE Roa a ot STP A eth IRE PEE + Fase URNS EES a RAE HE — 3% 36 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. The commission above referred to is in the words and figures fol low- ing, to wit: 533 The United States of America to Henry Williams, esq., Freder- ick, Maryland, greeting: Know ye, that we, trusting to your fidelity and provident circumspec- tion in diligently examining witnesses for complainant in a certain matter of controversy now pending and undetermined in our circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky (at Covington), wherein Gideon Bantz is complainant and D. Frantz et al. are defend. ants, therefore command you that at such certain days and places as you shall appoint, that you cause said Gideon Bantz to come before vou and him diligently examine on oath, touching the premises, and said exalminatioa into our said court, distinctly and plainly, without delay you shall send certified and enclosed, returning also to us this writ. Witness, Henry Bostwick, clerk of our said court, at the Federal court-hall, jn the city of Covington, this 24th day of March, A. D. 1877, and of our Independence the 10I1st. [SEAL. | ; H. BOSTWICK, Clerk. $4 Testimony of Gideon Lantz. Question 1. Are you the complainant in this case? Auswer 1. I am. (). 2. State how long you have been engaged in tanning—where you first began. . A. 2. About thirty-five years. In Frederick, April 1, 1542. Q). 5. When did you first experiment in burning tan as a fuel? A. 3. About 1546 I commenced using it; in 1845 I succeeded in using dry tan alone to run all my machinery; August 25th, 1549, as per the annexed exhibit, marked A, you will see my operations were a complete success ; the newspaper was torwarded to me by some unknown person. (). 4. When did \ou devise your plan in burning tan in a furnace sep- arate and apart from the boiler, and applying the ‘heat through a com- bustion chamber under the boiler A. 4. In the year 1852 I determined to do so; had devised numerous plans, but for the want of room near the boiler at that time prevented : ne. (). 5. When did you make your first complete drawing, and when did you build your furnace as patented, and how do you fix your date ? A. 5, June, 1854, | made my first drawing and dated it at the time; about August, 1854, 1 built my first furnace; I fix my date by the fact that at the same time | purchased a new boiler and put it in, as will be seen by annexed exhibit, marked B, the freight paid upon boiler from Baltimore, and exhibits filed in U.S. circuit court for southern district of Ohio. Q. 6. Did you know Moses Thompson, the patentee of the so-ealled Thompson furnace? If so, state when and how you became acquainted with him. A. 6. I did kuow him; he came to my yard in the summer of 1853; a Mr. E. 8S. Furney hough, of Richmond, Vv irginia, having speut some time with me in obtaining information on tanning, spoke to me in ref- erence to Mr. Thompson ; on his (Mr. Furney hough’ Ss) returning home, Mr. Thompson came to my yard and introduced ‘himself as the friend of Mr. Furneyhough. Q. 7. Did you ever see a furnace constituted like the drawings of the BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 37 Thompson application, marked Exhibit B, now shown you; if so, where; how did it work, and how do you fix the date? and state who used it, and give names and residences of any persons who knew of its use. A. 7. I have seen the so called Thompson furnace in Richmond, Vir- ginia, ou S. S. Marsh’s tan yard; likewise at a barrel factory ; it failed to get up steam to.run the engine continuously ; it was stopping and starting all the time. It was a very crude affair—the first furnace he ever built. From my memorandum book I fix the date between the 2d and 8th of December, 1853. In 1854, I saw three in Frederick ; my brother’s, Hanshew Markey’s, and my own. I saw three in Baltimore, two complete and one being built for Denmead & Co.; the names of the others I do not know; they were all failures. George Morkell, John Durall, Henry Wilson, G. Ernest Bantz, and others, of Frederick, knew of its use in Frederick. Q. 8. How have the furnaces constructed under your patent worked ? A. 3. All that I have constructed have generally given satisfaction ; I guarantee them to do so, or no remuneration. q. 9 Who made your original application ? A. 9. 1 did, myself; and had no knowledge of the practice at the time. (). 10. Why did you apply for a reissue ? A. 10. Through inadvertance and want of knowledge of the law I put everything in one claim, whereas the separate parts that act separately should have been claimed separately. (). 11. State what, if any, connection the reverberatory chambers, the diving flues, and dead chambers have with the parts claimed in the first claim, and with each other. 40) A. 11. They each perform separate functions and have distinct features. The dead chambers to keep the heat where it is needed in the burning chambers, and to keep the top as cold as possible. The reverberatory chambers to receive the heat, and by the aid of the div- ing flue retain it under the boiler until it has lost its vitality as far as possible. These are all separate from the first claim. Q. 12. What is the use of the cima reversa bottom, and is it connected to your combustion chamber ? A. 12. It is to direct the flame or rays of heat more directly around and against the under surtace of the boiler, and is not essential to the combustion chambers. Each one of the various claims have separate and distinct offices to perform outside of the burning chambers. Q. 13. State any other matter that, to you, seems material or import- ant to the case ? A. 13. My furnace has the combustion chamber immediately under the front of the boiler, where all the heat and flame meet, mingle, and consume each other. In Thompson’s it is wasted in the long narrow tlue. Cross interrogatories : X Q. 1. Was ever a furnace constructed entirely like your patent, with cima reversa bottom, with reverberatory chambers, diving flue, &e., ever built? If so, state where, and by whom, and for whom. A. 1. I never saw one outside of those I have built, but I am informed they are erected by infringers. X Q. 2. Do you know of anybody who is using such a furnace, with reverberatory chambers? If so, who and where? A. 2. Not of my knowledge, but I have been told so by my experts and others that infringers are using the whole of or parts of my claims throughout the United States. ES TNO ES AEA 38 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. X Q. 3. Did you not state, as a witness in your own behalf, in the case of yourself against Elsas & Pritz, in the district court for the southern district of Ohio, that you made your invention, originally, in June of _ year 1554, and that you applied for your patent in Mare bh, 1855 ! Oo. Yes, 1 did. ea x Q. 4. Did you not, in that case, state that you made your first farn- ace in August, 1854, the next in 1859, and that the former of the two Was being : altered and changed, by you, more or less until perfected ? A. 4. About August, 1554 ; about 1859, and it was being altered and changed by me, more or less, until perfected, and the proportions being altered, but not the principle. GIDEON BANTZ. STATE OF MARYLAND; County of Frederick, to wit: I, Henry Williams, a notary public for the county of Frederick, State of Maryland, do hereby certify that the foregoing deposition ‘was duly taken, sworn to, and subscribed before me, at the time and place men- tioned. ° Given under my hand and notarial seal, this 29th day of March, A. D. 1377. [SEAL.] HENRY WILLIAMS, Notary Pub., Frederick, Maryland. i2 Certificate. STATE OF MARYLAND, I’rederick County, to wit: I, Henry Williams, a notary public in and tor the county and State aforesaid, duly commissioned and qualified, the commissioner named in the annexed commission in the ease of Gideon Bantz vs. D. Frantz et al., in the circuit court for the district of Kentucky, at Covington, do hereby certify that 1 opened said commission on the 7th day of April, A. D. 1877, at the house of Gideou Bantz, in Frederick, Maryland, and then and there appeared before me, on behalf of complainant, Henry Wilson, John Duvall, and G. Earnest Bantz, witnesses of lawful age, who, alter being by me duly sworn to make true answers, did auswer as follows the annexed interrogatories. [n testimony whereof [ have hereanto set my hand and afiixed my notarial seal this (th day of April, A. D. 1877. [SEAL. | HENRY WILLIAMS, sé Notary Public, Frederick, Maryland. The commission above reterred t6 is in the words and figures follow- ing, to wit: The United States of America to Henry Williams, Frederick, Mary land, special commissioner, greeting : Know ve that we, trusting to your fidelity and provident cireumspec- tion in diligently examining witnesses, to wit, Henry Wilson, G. E. Bantz, and Jobn Duvall, ina certain matter of controversy now depend- ing in our circuit court ot the United States for the Kentueky district at Covington, wherein Gideon Bantz is complainant and D. Frantz et al. are defendants, we command you that at such certain days and places as you shall appoint, you shall call and cause the witnesses to « BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 39 come, and then diligently examine on oath touching the premises ; and their examination into our said court, distinetly and plainly, without delay, you shall send and certify enclosed, returning also this writ. 42 In witness whereof, Hon. Morrison R. Waite, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, hath caused the seal of our said court to be hereunto attixed, this 4th day of April, 1877, and of our Independence the 101st year. [SEAL. | | H. BOSTWICK, C. C. C., A. D. 43 Testimony of Henry Wilson. q. 1. State your name, age, residence, and occupation. z A. 1. My name is Henry Wilson. I am about seventy years old, and my occupation a tanner, @. 2. How long have you been engaged at your present employment and with your present employer ? A. 2. I have been engaged in tanning more than fifty years, and have been thirty-four years, the 29th of next June, with Mr. Gideon Bantz. (). 5. Did you ever know a Mr. Moses Thompson? If so, when and where, and under what circumstances did you become acquainted with him ? | A. 3. I did know Moses Thompson well. When he stopped with Mr. | Bantz he hadsome clothing to wash, and he asked me to get them washed ~ for him, and my wife washed them for bim. Q. 4. Do you know when Mr. Bantz first began to use tan, as fuel, to run his engine? A. 4. In 1846, I think, he first began to use it slightly. He put up his furnace in 1854. We were burning tan all the time from 1846, and I helped to dry it. | (). 5. State fully all you know about his early use of tan as fuel. A. 5. [ have answered this in my previous answer. He was the only one that I knew of in Frederick that was using it successfully at that time. Q. 6. Do you know whether Mr. Bantz ever made a model and draw- ings of a furnace for burning tan as fuel, for Mr. Thompson? If so, state all vou know about it. A. 6. I know that Mr. Bantz made a drawing and model for Mr. Thompson. I know by reason of Mr. Bantz having his work-bench and patterns in the shop at the yard where he worked. (). 7. Did you ever see a farnace built in accordance with Mr. Thomp- son's plan? If so, when, where, and who built it? A. 7. I did see one of Mr. Thompson’s furnaces in 1854, at Mr. Bantz’s yard; Mr. Thompson and Mr. Bantz built it under Mr. Thompson’s di- rections. I helped to dig the foundation for it, and helped to clean the brick of the old furnace. (). 8. What became of the furnace? State all you know of it, also how you fix your dates, and describe construction. A. 8. We ran it a while and could not get along with it, and Mr. Bantz tore it down. I fed the bark-mill at the time. Mr. George Markell woald come in and would throw a little bark in the mill and stop the engine, and then laugh at the engineer. I fix my date from the death of Mr. Bantz’s father. Thompson’s furnace had four burning chambers; the first stood against the wall of the tannery, other three to the west i of it. The heat of Mr. Tuompson’s furnace seemed to go around the 40 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. “ts —- a small flue; he had nothing under the boiler that EF snow O (). 9. Did you ever see a furnace built according to Mr. Bantz’s plan, that is, having two or more single fire-chambers not arranged under the boiler, with a combustion chamber above the top of said fire chambers and located directly under the front end of the boiler? If so, where and when did you first see such furnace? State all you know about it. A. 9. The only one I ever saw was ov Mr. Bantz’s yard. I helped to tear down the Thompson furnace and helped to build Mr. Bantz’ s, and we are using the furnace now. (). 10. Which was the best of these two furnaces, _ to what do you attribute the superiority of the one over the other? A. 10. Mr. Bantz’s was the better, because it kept the machinery go- ing all the time, and I attribute the superiority to the fact, as I said before, the heat seemed to pass around through the narrow "flue in the Thompson furnace, and did not strike the boiler as directly as in Mr. Bantz’s furnace. 44 Cross-interrogatories to HENRY WILSON. Answer each of these cross-interrogatories addressed to Gideon Bantz. X Q. 1. (To Gideon Bantz.) Was ever a furnace constructed entirely like your patent, with cima reversa bottom, with reverberatory cham- bers, diving flue, &c., ever built? If so, state where, and by whom, and for whom. A. 1. Not that I know of. X Q. 2. (To Gideon Bantz.) Do you know of anybody who is using such a furnace with reverberatory chambers? If so, who and where? A, 2. I have heard of them, but don’t know of them. X. Q. 5. (To Gideon Bantz.) Did you not state, as a witness in your own behalf, in the case of yourself against Elsas & Pritz, in the district court for the southern district of Ohio, that you made your invention originally, in June of the year 1854, and that you applied for patent in March, 1855? . A. 3. This applies to Mr. Bantz, and I know nothing abont it. X Q. 4. (To Gideon Bantz.) Did you not, in that case, state that you made your first furnace in August, 1854, the next in 1859, and that the former of the two was being altered and changed by you more or less until perfected ? A. 4. To this [ make the same reply. It applies to Mr. Bantz, and I know nothing about it. X Q. 5. Have you never seen side or back door for taking out ashes in kitchen ranges, steam furnaces, or thle before you saw them in Bautz’s wet-fuel furnace ? A. 5. In cook stoves I have, but not in furnaces. X Q. 6. If the cima reversa, and the reverberating chambers, and the dead chambers are all left out, what do you then consider the charac- teristic difference between the ’Bantz furnace from the Thompson fur- nace ? A. 6. The difference between the Bantz furnace and Thompson fur. nace is, that in Mr. Thompson’s the heat passed around through a nar- row flue to get to the boiler, and in Mr. Bantz’s it passed right under the boiler, direct from the furnace. X Q. 7. If, under cross-interrogatory 6, you have shown the difference, | in constraction, between the Thompson and the partial Bantz patent, —_ BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 41 explain what the difference, in effect, is; and what is, the cause of that difference ? A. 7. Mr. Thompson lost his heat in a long narrow flue, whilst Mr. Bantz’s being direct through a fourteen-inch wall under the front of the boiler. Thompson had nothing under the boiler to make the heat strike the boiler and keep it there, whilst Mr. Bantz had reverberatory cham- bers, cima reversa bottom, and descending flue. his HENRY + WILSON, mark, Test: HENRY WILLIAMS. 45 Testimony of G. E. Bantz. (). 1. State your name, age, residence, and occupation. 1, A. 1. G. Ernest Bantz is my name; my age, thirty-two years; my res- idence, Frederick, Maryland ; and my occupation, a currier. (). 2. Are you related to Mr. Gideon Bantz; if so, how? A. 2. [am. Iam his son. (). 3, Do you remember when he began to use tan as fuelin his furnace ? A. 3. I remember when he first began to use wet tan, but not dry tan exclusively. Q.4. Did you ever know one Moses Thompson? If so, when and where did you tirst become acquainted with him, and under what cir- cumstances ? A. 4. I did know Moses Thompson. I became acquainted with him in Frederick, when he came here to get information in reference to his furnace, : ().5. Did you ever know of Mr. Gideon Bantz making a model and drawings of a furnace for burning tan as fuel for Moses Thompson? If yes, state all you know about it. A. 5.:My father made his model and drawing. I saw him make them. The drawing herewith, marked Exhibit D, I saw him make. (). 6. Did you ever see a furnace built in accordance with Mr. Thomp- son’s model and drawing? If yes, when and where? A. 6. I did see one of Thompson’s furnaces in March, 1854, at my father’s tan yard. . 7. Was this furnace operative and satisfactory ? If yes, how long was itinuse? If no, why not? Give the reasons fully. A. 7. It was not successful, for the reason that we could pot make suf- ficient steam to run the machinery one-fourth of the time. @. 8. Did you ever see a drawing of a furnace for burning tan as fuel having two or more fire-chambers, not arranged under the boiler, with a combustion chamber above the top of said fire-chambers, and located directly under the front end of the boiler? If so, when and where did you first see such drawing? State all you know about it, and how you fix your dates. A. 8. I have seen such an one as is represented by my father’s patent. I saw the drawing in June, 1854, at my father’s yard. My father made the drawing ; it was posted against the wall there for six or seven years. I fix the date by the fact that directly after that time my father pur- chased a boiler, the date of which is upon the receiving books of the railroad company. (). 9. Did you ever see a furnace built according to the said drawings? If yes, when and where? State all you know of it. 42 BANTZ VS, FRANTZ ET AL. A. 9%. I saw the one in use on my father’s yard ; it was up and ready for the boiler on the 6th of July, 1854. (). 10. How did said furnace operate, successfully or otherwise? If successfully, state the reasons, and your opportunities for knowing ; and compare the success of said furnace with the suecess of the Thompson furnace, and state whether either was superior; and if so, why? A. 10. [t gave entire satisfaction ; so much so, that it has been in use all the time since, and afforded suflicient steam for all our purposes with- out giving any trouble. My opportunities for knowing about the two furnaces were, that I was about the yard all the time, and I know, from practical observation, that Thompson’s furnace failed to act, and that my father’s gave entire satisfaction. The reason why Thompson’s far- nace did not act, it did not furnish sufficient heat, and what it did fur- nish was lost in the long, narrow flue, or mixing chamber, at the rear of the furnace. It was so hot at the rear that it fired the tan bank; we were compelled to dig it out and put clay in. In my father’s furnace . the heat from the furnace is applied immediately under the boiler, 46 Cross-interrogatories to G. E. BANTZ: Answer each of the cross- interrogatories addressed to Gideon Bantz. X Q. 1 (to Gideon Bantz). Was ever a furnace constructed entirely like your patent with cima reversa bottom, with reverberatory chambers, diving flue, &c., ever built? If so, state where, and by whom, and for whom. A. 1. I never saw any other but those erected by my father. X @. 2 (to Gideon Bantz). Do you know of anybody who is using such a furnace, with reverberatory chambers? If so, who, and where. A. 2. | know of none, except my father’s, from my own knowledge ; I have e hee ard of others trom other people. X (). 3 (to Gideon Bantz). Did you not state, as a witness in your own behalf, in the case of yourself against Elsas & Pritz,in the district court for the southern district of Ohio, that you made your invention, originally, in Jane of the year 1854, and that vou applied for your pat- ent in Mareh, 1855 A. 3. This is a a to my father. XQ. 4 (to Gideon Bantz). Did you not in that case state that you made your first furnace in August, L854, the next in 1859, and that the former of the two was being altered and changed by you, more or less, until perfected ? A. 4. In the Bantz furnace the fire-chamber, or chambers, are sur- rounded on top by dead chamber, or dead chambers, to insure safety from fire and comfort to the workmen. The fire-chamber, or chambers, are connected to the boiler or object to be beated direct, and when in oper- ation are opened and remain so as long as you may want their heat ; they are continuous in their operation (not intermittent, as in the Thomp- son); they are fired as often as they need replenishing ; the products of combustion are consumed immediately under the boiler, or object to be heated; it is at this point the live heat is laid to be conducted off by the boiler, or object to be heated. | X Q@. 5. Have you never seen side or back doors for taking out ashes in kitchen ranges, steam furnaces, or stoves, before you saw them in Bantz’s wet-fuel furnace ? A. 5. I have séen them in stoves, but never in furnaces before my father’s. X Q. 6. If the cima reversa and the reverberating chambers, and the dead chambers, are all left out what do you then consider the charac- BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 43 teristic difference between the Bantz furnace from the Thompson fuar- nace? | A. 6. The Thompson furnace consists of a series of burning chambers, each of which (i. e. the burning chambers) is provided with a short con- tracted flue containing a damper, and these short contracted flues are attached to a long narrow flue or mixing chamber; this apart from the boiler or thing to be heated. The Bantz furnace consists of a fire-cham- ber, or chambers, supplied with or without a dead chamber or cham- bers, and they, the fire chamber or chambers, are connected to the boiler or tbing to be heated direct. X Q. 7. 1f under cross-interrogatory 6 you have shown the ditterence in construction between the Thompson and the partial Bantz patent, explain what the difference in effect is, and what is the cause of that difference, A. 7. In the Thompson the burning chambers are to be alternately charged, and their front and rear dampers closed at the same time, and opened at the same time; (they are not continuous in their operation) ; whatever is unconsumed in the burning chambers is to be consumed by the aid of the long narrow flue or mixing chamber on its way to and apart from the boiler or thing to be heated. It is at this point what lit- tle heat furnished by the burning chambers is conducted off to a serious extent by the surrounding brick work, earth and air before it reaches the boiler or thing to be heated. 7 G. ERNEST BANTZ., Subseribed and sworn to before me this seventh day of April, A. D. 18ii. HENRY WILLIAMS, Notary Public, Frederick, Maryland. 47 Testimony of John Devall. (). 1. State your name, age, residence, and occupation. A. 1, My name is John Dewall; I will be sixty-one years old next June; and my occupation a tanner. (). 2. How long have you been engaged by your present employer, and in your present employment ? ‘A. 2. I have been tanning thirty-two vears, and all that time with Mr. Bantz. 7 Q. 5. Did you ever know one Moses Thompson? If ves, when, and under what circumstances did you become acquainted, and how do you fix dates? A. 5. I did know Moses Thompson; I knew him in the summer of 1853, when he came to see about burning wet tan. I fix my date by two things: first, Mr. Bantz’s father died in 1854, and Mr. Bantz’s son Marion, made a mark of the date, 1854, on the side of the boiler wall when it was put up, and I know that Mr. Thompson was here the sum- mer before. (). 4. Do you know anvthing of Mr. Bantz’s making bim a model and drawing of a furnace for burning tan as fuel? If so, what do you know ? A. 4. I saw Mr. Bantz make a model and drawing both for him in the yard. (). 5. Did you ever see a furnace made according to that model and drawing; if so, when and where? A. 5. I did see Thompson’s furnace in March, 1854, built aecording to that model and drawing. I was the engiveer and tried to run it. 44 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. Q. 6. How did that furnace operate? State all you know of it, and whether Mr. Thompson had anything to do with it. A. 6. It did not operate at all; we worked at it day and night, some- times all night, and Mr. Thompson himself was there sometimes ‘as late as eleven. or twelve o'clock:at night. Mr. Thompson bimself said it would not act; that he was sorry he had undertaken it. I told Mr. santz if he did not make some other arran gement I would quit, and he told me to hold on; that he would put one “there that would act. (). 7. Did you ev er know of any alteration being made in this furnace by Mr. Thompson, or any one else ? A. 7. He tried several times to alter the flues, etc., but it would not act; it would burn the tan-bank behind but would not go under the boiler. I advised several times to put the boiler over the long flue, and we would stand a better chance to make steam. (). 8. Ifow long was it in use, and where? A. 8. We used it about five months on Mr. Bantz’s tan-yard. (). 9. Did you ever see a furnace for burning tan with two or more fire- chambers arranged under the boiler, with a combustion-chamber or reservoir above the top of said fire-chambers, and located directly under the front end of the boiler? If yes, where and when first, and how do you fix the date? A.9 I have seen Mr. Bantz’s, which is arranged in that way. I fix my date in the same way that. I did in reference to Mr. Thompsou’s furnace, (). 10. Did you ever see the original drawing of that furnace; if yes, where and when? A. 10. I did; when we were building it in the engine-room. @. 11. How did that furnace work? and compare the success of the same with the success of the Thompson, stating which was superior, and why. A. 11. It worked well, and there was as much difference as between day and night, in favor of the Bantz furnace, over the Thompson fur- nace, for the reason that the Bantz furnace got up steam and kept it up all day without stopping. We could grind more bark in one day with the Bantz furnace than we could in a month with the Thompson. 48 Cross-interrogatories to JOHN DEWALL: Answer each of the cross-interrogatories addressed to Gideon Bantz. X Q. 1. (To Gideon Bantz.) Was ever a furnace constructed entirely like your patent with cima reversa bottom, with reverberatory cham. bers, diving flue, ete., ever built? Ifso, state where and by whom and for whom. A. 1. I never saw any except Mr. Bantz’s, now in use on his tan-yard. X Q. 2. Do you know of anybody who is using such a furnace with reverberatory chambers? If so, who and where ? A. 2. I don’t know of any other except the one now in use on Mr. Bantz’s tan-yard. I have heard of others, through Mr. Wisong, who saw them in his travels, infringing on Mr. Bantz’s patent. X Q. 3. Did you not state as a witness, in your own behalf, in the case of yourself against Elsas & Pritz, in the district court for the south- ern district of Ohio, that you made your invention originally in June, of the year 1854, and that you applied for your patent in March, 1855 ? A. 3. This question applies to Mr. Bantz. X Q. 4. Did you not in that case state that you made your first Bei Sig: 5 cAI ls MTT 0 ass ie it Aaa cab BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 45 furnace in August, 1554, the next in 1859, and that the former of the two was being altered and changed by you, more or less, until perfected ? A. 4. This also applies to Mr. Bantz. X Q. 5. Have you never seen side or back door for taking out ashes in kitchen ranges, steam furnaces, or stoves, before you saw them in Bantz’s wet-fuel furnanee ? A. 5. Ihave seen them in cook stoves to be taken out in front or side, but never by the side of a boiler betore Mr. Bantz’s. X Q. 6. If the ciina reversa and the reverberating-chambers, and the dead-chambers are all left out, what do you then consider the character- istic difference between the Bantz furnace from the Thompson furnace ? A. 6. It would be pretty much like Thompson’s, and would not act at all. | X. Q. 7. If under cross-interrogatories you have shown the difference in construction between the Thompson and the partial Bantz patent, explain what the difference in effect is, and what is the cause of that difference ? A. 7. In Thompson’s furnace the heat had to travel twenty feet through a narrow fiue, and in that distance lost all of its life; in Mr. Bantz’s patent the heat was applied directly in front of the boiler from the burning chambers. JOHN DEWALL. Certificate. STATE OF MARYLAND, FREDERICK COUN’Y, to wit: I, Henry Williams, a notary public for the county of Frederick, State of Maryland, do hereby certify that the foregoing depositions were duly taken, sworn to, and subscribed before me, at the time and place men- tioned. | Given under my hand and notarial seal this seventh day of April, A. D. 1877. : HENRY WILLIAMS, Notary Public, Frederick, Maryland. 49 Circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky. GIDEON LANTZ } rs, , DAVID FRANTZ. ET a. § The respondents will take notice that the complainant will examine witnesses in the above-named cause, under the 67th rule in equity as amended, before competent authority, examiner, at the office of Hatch & Parkinson, No. 8 West 3d street, Cincinnati, Ohio, on Monday, the 23d day of April, 1877, beginning said examination at 9 o’clock a. m. of said day, and continuing trom day to day until completed. HATCH & PARKINSON, ; Sols for Complainant. Received copy April 10th, 1877. LEWIS N. DEMBITZ, Solicitor for Def’ ts. Here follows copy of depositions taken in pursuance of the foregoing notice. 46 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 50 Depositions, Circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky. In equity. GIDEON BANYTZ } vs. DAVID FRANTZ ET os, 5 Examination of witnesses on belialfof the complainant, under the 67th rule in equity, as amended, in accordance with the annexed notice, before Ernest H. Rydal, notary pablie and acting special examiner, on Mon- day, the 25rd day of April, 1577. Present: J. E. Hatch, esq., of Hatch & Parkinson, tor complainant ; L. N. Dembitz, esq., for respondents. FRANK MILLWARD, a witness called on behalf of complainant, being first duly cautioned and sworn, deposes and says as follows in answer to interrogatories propounded to him by JOHN E. Harca, Esq., of coun- sel for complainant : (Question 1. State your name, age,- residence, and occupation, and whether or not you are the same Frank Millward heretofore examined in this case. Answer 1. Frank Millward; age, forty-three; solicitor of patents and mechanical engineer; lL reside at Ludlow, Kentucky; wy office is in Cin- cinnati, Ohie; Iam the same person that testified in this suit previously of that name. (). 2. Please look at Exhibit M T:‘now shown you, being the file of the application of Moses Thompson for a furnace marked * Patented April 10th, 1855,” state whether or not you have examined it, and understand the construction of the furnace shown in the drawings thereto attached ? A. 2. I have carefully read and examined the said exhibit, and be- lieve Lunderstand the construction and operation of the furnace therein shown and described. : (). 5. Please state how a furnace constructed in accordance with the drawings of said patent woukl compare with or differ from one con- structed in accordance with the reissued patent, No. 4731, granted Gid- eon Bantz, and give your reasons for any opinion you may express, re- ferring especially to the features of the Bantz furnace, claimed in the first and third claims of the reissue ? A. 3. In my former testimony I have given the essential construe- tion of the Bantz furnace, as described and shown in the Bantz patent, reissue 4731, in relation to the improvement specified in the first claim, and also with relation to that part of the improvement which is covered by the third claim. I have stated that the Bantz furnace consists, in so far as it relates to the first claim, of a steam boiler furnace, con- structed specially for burning wet fuels, having two chambers—fire- chambers, located in the front of the boiler, and not under the same, these fire chambers communicating with the combustion-chamber lo. eated above the fire-chamber, and immediately under the front end of the boiler. The claim upon this part of the improvement reads as fol- lows: “In a furnace tor burning wet fuels, having two or more single fire-chambers not arranged under the boiler, the combustion-chamber or reservoir C, arranged above the top of said fire-chambers, and located directly under the front end of the boiler.” In comparing this improve- ment with the furnace shown and described in Exhibit M T, I find as 51 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 7 47 follows: That the furnace described in said Exhibit M T is not a steam boiler furnace, but is a combination of three fire chambers for burning wet fuéls, all communicating with a cross flue, which also communicates with a direct flue from said « cross flue, the chambers each having a dam- per or valve operating to cut off communication from each chamber to said cross flue, or to open the same at will, so that the operator can smother two fires and keep the other burning brightly. It is said in the patent that a boiler may be attached to this furnace ; and if it is so attached, the flue which extends from the cross flue must be made of a shape, size, ete., to properly enclose the boiler. There is no boiler shown in connection with the furnace and no construction indicated in any way by which a constructor could combine a boiler with such a furnace, in aby particular way. The patent, however, 51 states that the boiler, when attached, is placed in connection with the flue marked I. I¢ is not, theretore, intended to place the boiler over the cross flue marked F, and the cross flue marked F is cov- ered by a crown or arch of brick-work, which would prevent it being used as a combustion-chamber under the front endof the boiler, in such away that the gases in the combustion-chamber could act upon the boiler in the generation of steam. This Thompson furnace is, in con- struction and operation, entirely different from the construction and op- eration essential to the embodiment of the bantz improvement, as ex- pressed in the Bantz patent, reissue 4751, and summed up particularly in the first claim thereof, for the following reasons: First, the Thompson furnace is nowhere shown and described to be in connection with a steam boiler at all, in such a way as to enable a constructor to build the same, as there is no drawing attached, and po specific description to guide a builder in combining a steam boiler with such a furnace. Second, the Thompson furnace has no combustion-chamber or reser- voir arranged above the top of its fire-chambers, and located directly under the front end of the boiler; and, Third, it has no combustioa-chamber corresponding with or adapted to perform the functions for which the Bantz combustion-chamber C is designed. I have before stated fully, that it is necessary to the fulfillment of the Bantz improvement, that the two furnaces should unite in a combustion- chamber located under the front end of the steam boiler, and arranged to operate upon such steam boiler; there is no such construction shown or described in Exhibit M T. I before stated, also, that that portion of the Bbantz improvement which is summed up in the third claim thereof, relates to the same construction of furnace, reservoir or combustion- chamber, arranged as I have deseribed, with the addition thereof of the said door or doors for the admission of atmospheric air. It is sufficient to say, with reference to the Thompson furnace, that it has no combus- tion-chamber corresponding with the combustion chamber C of the Bantz patent in any respect with relation to the steam boiler, and, as this re- servoir or chamber is the most essential requisite of that part of the im- provement covered by the said third claim, it cannot be said with reason that the Thompson furnace embraces the improvement shown and de- scribed in the Bantz reissue, No. 4731, and specified in said third claim. Il am clearly of the opinion that said Thompson furnace does not em- brace said improvement. Q. 4. What is the object of the combnstion-chamber C in the Ban tz patent? : A. 4. It performs two offices; one, a reservoir for receiving heated 48 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. gases for communication to the front end of the steam boiler, and the other, to unite and mingle the gases in a reverberatory manver which are received from the two fire-cham bers. . @. 5. What is the object of its particular location, and is there any especial importance attached to the particular point at which it is located ? A. 5. In burning wet fuels it is important that it should be located at the end of the furnace, so that the boiler may not have to extend over the top of the fuel chambers, and it is important that the boiler should extend over the combustion-chamber, so that the gases received into it may communicate their heat to the steam boiler directly. (). 6. At what part of the steam boiler should the greatest heat be applied ? A. 6. The most effective end of the steam boiler is that immediately in connection with the hottest part of the furnace, and in this case, this part is the combustion-chamber, so .that it is important that the heat derived from this combustion-chamber should be utilized as speedily as possible upon the sheets of the boiler. (). 7. Considering the size of the tlue F in the defendants’ Exhibit M T, state whetber, in your opinion, that would be sufficient to act as an effective combustion-chamber, even were a boiler placed over the flue I, and with its end projecting over the flue Fk? 52 A. 7. This flue F, in the‘Thompson patent, is simply a long cross flue. I do not see how a boiler could be placed over the fiue I with its forward end covering the whole of the flue I’, as the flue F extends too far on each side to permit any boiler having the requisite propoctious in relation to the furnaces, to cover it. Ifa boiler the size necessary for such fire chambers, were located. over flue I and extending over tlue I’, or rather over the middle of it, as it could not extend over it for its entire width, this flue F could not be regarded as a combustion chamber, within the meaning of the Bantz patent. It has no capacity for reverberation, and no capacity for the proper mingling of the gases received from the several fire-cham bers, and it would have to be changed materially, in construction, to enable it to act at all upon a steam boiler, in the manner indicated in the question; as it would have to have its crown removed at that portion below the end of the boiler, and its crown retained at the sides where no boiler covered it. (). 8. Please state whether or not in your opinion with a furnace like the Thompson drawing and a boiler placed simply over the flue I with- out covering over the flue I* sufficient heat could be applied to be eftec- tive, and give the reasons for your opinion. A. 8. It would not. The heat is delivered from the furnace into the cross flue I, which would be exposed at the ends and other portions so that a great amount of heat would be lost by radiation and conduction before it reached the boiler at all, and the boiler would be too far re- moved from contact with the direct heat from the fires to be eflicient as a Steam generator. Q. 9. Look at the drawing now shown you marked Respondent’s Ex- hibit A, being the diagram referred to in the deposition of A. Frantz, junior, as a drawing of the furnace now used by the respondent, and state how the furnace, shown in said drawing, compares with, or differs from, both the furnace shown in the drawing of Exhibit M T, and from the turnace shown in the drawing of the Bantz reissue No. 4731, and state which of said last two drawings, the drawings of the Frantz fur- nace most nearly resembles, and give your reasons for your comparisons. A. 9. The Frantz furnace, as shown by the Exhibit A, is substantially ate” ya ca teceived payment for the company. | F. HANSHEW, for Agent. Car No. I certify that this a true copy from manifest. 60 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, U. S. PATENT OFFICE. To all persons to whom these presents shall come, greeting: This is to certify that the annexed in a true copy, from the files of this office, of the file wrapper and contents and drawing, in the matter of letters patent granted Moses Thompson, dated April 10th, 1855, No. 12678, for improvement in furnaces for burning wet fuel. In testimony whereof, I, W. H. Doolittle, Acting Commissioner of Patents, have caused the seal of the Patent Office to be hereunto affixed this seventeenth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and first. (SEAL. | W. H. DOOLITTLE, Acting Commissioner. aa 7 . “ . BI PO AE Sige Se Pe ” Pe ee P Pere! Ramee cae Stage oe a RE a Oe OS EGER 7 ae 3 3! Sete Becta) ee ek ol ee Lee IE DERE, ik Ln lel Niel eon dete So ~? BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 57 M. Thompson. Furnace. Patented Apr. 10, 1855. No. 12678. Fic. §. .. . AN “ e. $ ‘ a BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 63 fed into an intensely heated chamber. Under such circumstances the water in the fuel, in the presence of the carbonaceous substances, in the furnace, will be decomposed, giving its oxygen to the carbonaceous matter, dispensing with a draft and its cooling and wasteful influences, and rendering the combustion so perfect that no smoke is visible.” Amend, if you please, the claim as follows: Paragraph 2, line 3, Insert at L, page 7. after the word ‘‘is” insert ‘the combustion, for the pur- poses of a high degree of heat, of bagasse, refuse tan, saw-dust, and other refuse substances, or very wet and green wood by.” In line 11 from the last, insert after the words ‘of air” the words Insert at M, page 7. ‘when first charged.” and at the end, append, if you Insert at O, pase 7. please, the words “no artificial blast being used.” MOSES THOMPSON. To Hou. C. MASON, Commissioner of Patents, Washington, D. C. Amendment filed Mareh 19, 55.—E. T. Application of Moses Thompson.—Improvement in furnaces. I cannot concur in the theory of the applicant in relation to the de- composition of water aud some other matters, but regard his contrivance as a method of attaining an object effected in different wavs by other persons. ; It is well known that the smoke and gases evolved when wet or green fuel is added to any fire are, to a considerable extent, combustible. To effect this object, various contrivances have been suggested. We are now considering one of this character. 67 He claims, in pretty broad terms, ‘** the combustion (for the purpose of a high degree of heat) of bagasse, refuse tan, saw-dust, and other refuse substances, or very wet and green wood,” by the ar- rangement described in his specification. This consists in having three separate furnaces fer the reception aud combustion of the fuel above described. The tines trom these furnaces are united at their rear ex- tremity, so that when fresh fuel is added to one of the furnaces, the smoke and gases evolved uniting with the flame proceeding from the other turnaces, become completely consumed ; and when fresh fuel is added to another furnace, that which was last replenished becomes sut- ficiently ignited to furnish the flame to consume the smoke and gases now being evolved, and so on, in continual rotation. Such an arrange- ment will doubtless be well adapted to the combustion of wet or green fuel. But is it new? There seems to mf but one of the references given in the office letters of rejection which s¢ems to be a fair anticipation of any substantial part of the present contrivance or plan of operation. This is the patent of Bristow & Atwood, described in Newton’s Journal, conjoiped series, vol. 44, paze 81. The same idea is clearly shown and reduced to practical operation in that case. The precise method of accomplishing this pur- pose is differelit in the two cases, but the same substantial end is aimed atin both eases. The gases evolved from the furnace into which fresh fuel is placed, are consumed by the flame from the other furnaces. it is true bristow & Atwood seem to have coutemplated coal as the fuel to be used, but can a furnace previously in use for burning coal be patented for burning very wet or green wood, bagasse, &c.? I am not prepared to say that such cannot be the case, but am hardly able to say that it is patentable, without the aid of testimony different from any be- fore me at present. 64 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. But, inasmuch as the applicant may, I think, be fairly considered as not claiming the broad principle of burning the smoke and gases gener- ated in one furnace by bringing them in contact with the flames engen- , dered in another, but limits himself to the employment of bis series of fire-chambers to communicate with one flue, substantially as described, a and inasmuch as his arrangement seems to me substantially different from thatof either of the other patentees referred to, [ am inclined to allow the patent, which is accordingly done. | C. MASON. Decision of Cowm’r of Patents in favor of applicant. Filed March 26, 709. Recorded vol. 2, p. 483. Moses Thompson, care of Hall, Rodd & Putnam, New Orleans, La. No. 12678. 638 COUNTY OF HENRICO, State of Virginia: IMPROVEMENT IN FURNACES. a ee ae Received, ) Petition, | A ftidavit, > November 14th, 1853. Specification, | 2 diawings, 4 model, December 29th, 1853. , 7 ae 1 cert. dep., $10, November 14th, 1853. Caveat. Cash, 20, August 12th, 1853. | 2 examined, Mareh 26th, 1850. » Issue. 8. T. Sugert, March 26th, 1855. C. M. | O nso April L0th, 1855. e | Recorded, volume 62, page 199. Said patent to applicant, care of Hall, Rodd & Putnam. W. PP. N. FITZGERALD, Washington, D. C. Cre Reported to examiner, March 2d, 1854. Rejected, May 24th, 1854. Papers and one drawing to me, March loth, 1855. MOSES THOMPSON. Ex’d.—L. P. H. March 20th, 1835, rejected the second time. . This package to be read at the hearing by defendants, subject to all proper exceptions. L. N. DEMBITZ, D. S We agree to the above. HATCH & PARKINSON, Exhibit M. T. 69 Circuit court of the United States, district of Kentucky, at Cov- ington. At aterm of our said court, beld for its December term, A. D. 1877, BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL 65 and on a day of said term continued and held, to wit, on Wednesday, December 5th, A. D. 1877, the following order was made, viz: GIDEON BANTZ U8. D. FRANTZ ET AL. \ This cause coming on to be heard, upon motion to transfer same to Louisville for argument, and it appearing to the court that the parties have agreed to the same, it is ordered that the transfer be made, and that the cause be heard at Louisville, on the 27th day of December, A. D. 1877. At aterm of our said court, held for its May term, A. D. 1878, and on a day of said term continued and held, to wit,on Monday, May 13th, A. D. 1878, the following decree was entered, viz: GIDEON BANTZ ? Us. D. FRANTZ ET AL. \ This cause came on to be heard at Louisville, on the 28th of De- cember, 1877, in accordance with the order hereinbefore made; 70 and upon the hearing the plaintiff read the admissions made by the defendants in their answer, also read the exhibits made by and referred to in his bill, and the depositions of witnesses, namely, that of J. F. Twohig, Frank Millward, (two depositions and separate cross-examinations,) Gideon Bantz, G. E. Bantz, Henry Wilson, and John Dewall, and the exhibits proved therein and filed therewith. The defendants offered to read Exhibit A A referred to in their an- swer, being certified copy of Moses Thompson’s patent, and to prove it by the seal and attestation of the U. S. Patent Office. The plaintiff objected. His objection was overruled, and the proof made, aud the exhibit was filed and read as proof, and pl’t’tis excepted. The defendants also read the depositions of David Frantz, Frederick Kennell, and Lawrence Pratt, and the exhibits made by stipulation, namely, copy of specifications of plaintiff’s original patent, and copy of Moses Thompsoun’s file wrapper, and the defendants were allowed to file, and did file, an amendment to their answer, to conform it to the proof ;. and arguments of counsel being heard, the case was on the 29th of De- cember, 1877, submitted, and the court not being fully advised, took time to consider. 3 And the court being now fully advised, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the complainant’s bill of complaint herein be, and the same is hereby, dismissed. | And it is further adjudged, ordered, and decreed, that the com 71 plainant, Gideon Bantz, do pay to the defendants, David Frantz, sr., David Frantz, jr., aud Geo. W. Frantz, their costs by them in the defence of this suit expended. Complainant prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which is granted, upou complainant executing boud for costs in the sum of five hundred dollars. REc. 330—5 66 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. Circuit court of the United States, district of Kentucky, at Covington. In equity. GIDEON BANTZ D. FRANTZ ET AL. I, Henry Bostwick, clerk of said court, hereby certify that the fore- going pages (this included), contain a true transcript of the proceed- ings had in the above-entitled cause, as the same are now of record and on file in my office. In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and af- fixed the seal of said court this 14th day of September, A. D. 1878, and of our Independence the 103d year. (SEAL. | H. BOSTWICK, | C. C. C. K. D. ;\ Supreme Court of the United States. ~] Lo GIDEON BANTZ rs. DAVID FRANTZ, DaviD FRANTZ, JR., AND George W. Frantz. Know all men by these presents that we, Gideon Bantz, of Frederick -« City, Md., as principal, and Henry Kessler, of Cincinnati, Ohio, as surety, are held and firmly bound unto David Frantz, David Frantz, jr., and George W. Frantz, of Louisville, Ky., in the sum of five hundred dollars, lawful money of the United States, to be paid to the said David Frantz, David Frantz, jr., and George W. Frantz, their executors, ad- ministrators, or assigns, to which payment well and truly to be made we bind ourselves, and each of us, jointly and severally, and each of our successors, heirs, executors, and administrators, firmly by these presents. Sealed with our seals, dated this 2d day of July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight. Whereas the above-named Gideon Bantz has taken an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the decree reudered in the above-entitled action by the circuit court of the United States | for the district of Kentucky: Now therefore The condition of this obligation is such that if the above-named ; | 13 Gideon Bantz shall prosecute his said appeal to effect, and an- a swer all costs that. may be adjudged against him, if he shall fail 4s to make good his plea, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise to remain in full force and virtue. H. KESSLER. [SEAL. GIDEON BANTZ, |[SEAL. A true copy of the original now on file in my office. Attest. H. BOSTWICK, - C.C. C. K. SD. (Indorsement on cover:) No. 330. Gideon Ranutz, appellant, vs. Da- 7 vid Frantz et al. Kentucky C.C. U.S. Filed 9th November, 1878. ‘ —~ = STIPULATION OF COUNSEL AND ADDITION TO RECORD. a Supreme Court of the United States. GIDEON BANTZ, APPELLANT, ) . vs No. 84. Oct. term, 1851. DAVID FRANTZ ET AL. \ It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the counsel hereto that the amended answers and specifications of the Moses Thompson patent, hereto attached (being pages one to fourteen, inclusive), are-part of the record in this case, and may be added to said record by the clerk, and printed. Cincinnati, Ohio, August 23, 1881. ARTHUR STEM, : Counsel for Appellant. LEWIS N. DEMBITZ, Counsel for A ppetlees. 1 Proceedings of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky, at a regular term, begun and held at the Federal Court Hall, in the city of Covington, on Monday, May 13th, 1578,.and of our Independence the 102d year. Present, Hon. Bland Ballard, judge of the United States for the district of Kentucky. vs GIDEON BANTZ D. FRANTZ ET AL. The respondents, by leave of court at the hearing, amend their an- swer to the bill of complaint as follows: By adding to the answer, after these words, “the reissue is unlawful and void,” the following words: “The reissued patent is not for the same invention or inven- tions as the original patent.” L. N. DEMBITZ, For Def’ts. Here follows copy of Moses Thompson’s patent, the same which is called Exhibit AA in the above order. 2,3 The U.S. Patent Office to all persons to whom these presents shall come, greeting: This is to certify that the annexed is a true copy from the records of this office of the letters patent granted Moses Thompson, dated April 10th, 1855, No. 12678, for im’p’t in furnaces for burning wet fuel. In testimony whereof, I, W. H. Doolittle, Acting Commissioner of Patents, have caused the seal of the Patent Office to be hereunto affixed, this sixteenth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thou- 2 sand eight hundred and seventy-six, and of the Independence of the United States the one hundredth. [L. 8.| | W. H. DOOLITTLE, | Acting Commissioner. } The United States of America to all to whom these letters pat- ent shall come: Whereas Moses Thompson, of Henrico County, Va., has alleged that he has invented a new and useful improvement in furnaces for burtr- ing wet fuel, which he states has not been known or used before his application; has made oath that he is a citizen of the United States, that he does verily believe that he is the original and first inventor or discoverer of the said improvement, and that the same hath not, to the best of his knowledge and belief, been previously known or used; has paid into the Treasury of the United States the sum of thirty dol- lars, and presented a petition to the Commissioner of Patents signify- ing a desire of obtaining an exclusive property in the said improve- ment, and praying that a patent may be granted for that purpose : These are therefore to grant, according to law, to the said Moses Thompson, his heirs, administrators, or assigns, for the term of four- teen years from the tenth day of April, one thousand eight hun- dred and fifty-five, the full and exclusive right and liberty of mak- ing, constructing, using and vending to others to be used 5 the said improvement, a description whereof is given in the words of the said Thompson in the schedule hereunto annexed, and is made part of these presents. In testimony whereof lL have caused these letters to be made patent, and the seal of the Patent Office has been hereunto affixed. Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this tenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and _ fifty- five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the seventy-ninth. ROBERT McCLELLAND, Secretary of the Interior. Countersigned and sealed with the seal of the Patent Office. IL. 8. | S. T. SHUGERT, Acty Commissioner of Patents. The drawings referred to in this patent are found on page 57 of the printed record. 6,7 Moses Thompson, of Henrico Co., Va. Letters patent No. 12678. Dated April L0th, 1855. To all whom it may concern: ' Be it known that I, Moses Thompson, of the county of Henrico and State of Virginia, have invented a new and useful improvement in burning tan-bark, bagasse, sawdust, and other kinds of fuel in a wet state tor the purpose of creating heat to generate steam, or to be em- ployed in other heating or drying operations; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear, and exact description of the same, reference being had to the accompanying drawing, forming part of this specification, in which— Fig. 1 is a horizontal section of a furnace constructed according to my invention. Aree ee ae > NRE Ne A. REL hi Fig. 2 is a vertical section of the Same in the line z y of Fig. 1. Similar letters of reference indicate corresponding parts in the sev- eral figs. 8 The main object of my invention is to effect the more economi- eal use for fuel'of tan-bark, bagasse, or other trashy matters in a wet state, or very green or wet ’wood, It is also applicable to the burning of fuel of that or other descriptions in a dry state. But when the fuel is dry it is much less useful, and { do not claim its application thereto. The nature of my invention consists in the employment in the manner hereinafter described of a series of fire-chambers, arranged side by side, or in any convenient way to admit of the whole series communicating with the same heating-flue, which said fire-chambers are furnished with dampers by which their respective communications with the flue and the ash-pit may be closed or opened at pleasure. This arrangement is for the purpose of enabling the process of heating the fuel to an intense degree in a nearly air-tight chamber, and then admitting a free supply of air to promote its rapid combustion, to be conducted without inter- ruption to the operations which, the heat generated is intended to effect. To enable others skilled in the art to make and use my inven- 9 tion, I will proceed to destribe its construction and operation. The furnace shown inthe drawings has three fire-cham bers, A, A,’ A”. Three is the number shown, as I consider that number in most cases to be best adapted for practical operation. The fire-chambers are of square but may be of other form, with grate-bottoms, B, B’, B’, and arched tops. They are separated by walls of non-conducting material, and lined throughout with fire-brick. Each is provided with a door, C, in front, for the purpose of lighting and tending the fire, with an open- ne D,at the top, forthe purpose of supplying the fuel whenit consists of tan- bark, sawdust, or other material of a similar nature, and with an opening, E, at the back, which leads to the flue F ; the opening E being provided witha damper, K. Each fire-chamber hh: iS a Separate ash-pit, G, below it, which is furnished with a door, H, to regulate the Sarah of air. The flue F extends across the back of all three fire-c hambers, and the chimney may be at one end, or may be placed in the rear, with a flue, I, leading to it from the flue F, If the furnace is used for 10 gener ating steam the best place for the boiler will be in the flue I, which will be made of proper size to receive and nearly sur- round it. If used for other purposes, any arrangement may be made that may be considered best. But the thing to be heated ought to be so high as not to require the products of ¢ ombustion to descend on their passage to it. The mode of conducting the operations of the furnace is as follows: Fires being lighted in all the fire-chambers, two of the three have the doors H i of their ash-pits closed, and the damper K K so nearly closed as only to allow a sufficient escape of the gases generated by the slow combustion which then goes on to prevent e xplosion. The other fire-chamber in the mean time has the damper K open, and the door of the ash-pit opened far enough to admit any quantity of air that may be requisite to promote such a degree of combustion in the chamber as may be necessary to generate the amount of heat required. The air should be drawn in (except when exeluded) by natural draft, and if a high stack be used there should be a damper in it to check the draft. 11 When the fuel in the open chamber is reduced to a desirable de- gree, that chamber is closed and recharged, and another opened and supplied with air until the fuel within it is reduced, when it is 4 closed, recharged, and another opened; each in its turn being opened and freely supplied with air to generate and supply the requisite amount of heat while the others are closed and successively supplied with fresh wet fuel, to heat and decompose the same to such a degree as is desira- ble before allowing rapid combustion and escape of the heat to take place. Each fire-chamber should be supplied successively with fuel at properintervals by any convenient means, either through the hole D or through the door C, in front, just before closing the fire-chamber. The principal advantage of a furnace and process of this description consists in heating and decomposing the fuel, without any further loss of heat than is absorbed by the poor conducting material of which the furnace is constructed, to such a degree as will, when a proper supply of air is admitted, cause the most perfect combustion of the gases and smoke to be effected. This could not be effected in a single fire- 12 chamber without interruption to the proper supply of heat, but where two or more fire-chambers are employed no interruption takes place, as one furnace is always in full operation. Another ad- vantage consists in always holding a certain quantity of heat in reserve in the closed chambers, which may be immediately brought into action by opening one or more of the chambers. ‘A similar, but inferior, re- sult might be produced by having several separate grates and ash-pits to the same fire-chamber, each grate charged successively, and its ash- pit for a time closed immediately after fresh charging, to exclude the air. Ihave deseribed this in my caveat upon which this application is based, but do not use it because of its inferiority in practice, although it involves my principle.” ‘* After ample experiments I have discovered that any results which can be produced by the use of dry fuel are entirely inferior to mine in proportion to the quantity used, and that results like mine can only be attained by the use of wet fuel, similar to what I have herein men- tioned, fed into an intensely-heated chamber. Under such circum- stances the water in the fuel, in the presence of the carbonaceous 13 substances in the furnace, will be decomposed, giving its oxygen to the ca’benaceous matter, dispensing with a draft, and its cool- ing and wasteful influence, and rendering the combustion so pertect that no smoke is visible.” I do not claim the within-described arrangement of a series of fire- chambers to communicate with one common flue, irrespective of the purpose for which and the manner in which I employ the said arrange- ment. But what I do claim as my invention, and desire to secure by letters patent, is “the combustion, for the purpose of a high degree of heat, of bagasse, refuse tan, sawdust, and other refuse” substances, or very wet and green wood, by the employment of a series of fire-chambers, arranged in any manner substantially as described, to communicate with one flue, when any number of the said chambers are nearly closed. to the flue, and to the admission of air when first charged, as described, while the remaining chamber or chambers is in free communication with the flue, and has a free supply of air admitted, and each chamber in its turn is nearly closed, and then opened, and has air admitted, whereby the heat required is furnished by the combustion of the 14 fuel in one or more chambers, while the fuel in the other cham- ES I es ke 5 ber or chambers is being heated and decomposed to a desirable degree, as herein set forth, no artificial blast being used. MOSES THOMPSON. Witnesses: O. D. MUNN, JNO. W. HAMILTON. 15 Circuit court of the United States, district of Kentucky (at Cov- ington). GIDEON BANTZ i Us. I). FRANTZ ET AL. I, Henry Bostwick, clerk of said court, hereby certify that the fore- going fourteen (14) pages contain a true copy of the additional record in the above-entitled cause, as the same is now on file in my office. In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of said court this 12th day of September, A. D. 1881, and of our Independence the 106th year. [ SEAL. | H. BOSTWICK, C. 0. C. K. D. (Indorsed:) Sup. Court U.S. 1881, October term. No. 84. Gideon Bantz, app’l’ts, vs. David Frantz et al. Stipulation of counsel & addi- tion to record. Filed 15 Sept’r, 1881. Office Supreme Court U.S. Filed Sep. 15, 1881. James H. McKenney, clerk. a ow Robert Clarke & Co., Printers, Cincinnati, O.) / October, 1881. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. t GIDEON BANTZ, appellant § 18, DAVID FRANTZ et al. IN EQUITY. ‘ Appeal from Circuit Court of the United States, for the District of Kentucky. APPELLANT'S BRIEF. STEM & PECK, Counsel for Appellant. AME. wee 5 LORIE IID SMELLS | | Robert Clarke & Co., Printers, Cincinnati, 0.) ‘October, 1881. _ ++ -— —— a wien ee —s IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. GIDEON BANTZ, appellant DAVID FRANTZ et al. IN EQUITY. Appeal from Circuit Court of the United States, for the District of Kentucky, APPELLANT'S BRIEF. This is an appeal by the complainant below from a decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the bill of com- plaint. The suit was brought for infringement of re-issued let- ters patent No. 4,751, for Improvement in Boiler Furnaces tor burning wet fuel, granted the complainant. It was heard by Hon. Bland Ballard, and a decree was entered in favor of the appellees (defendants below.) The Court below ren- dered no opinion, but simply ordered the bill dismissed (Ree. p. 69), from which decision the complainant appealed to this Court. ERRORS ASSIGNED. 1. The Court erred in not finding the invention de- scribed in the original patent of complainant novel and useful. 2. It erred in not finding the re-issue of said letters patent to be for the same invention as the original, and therefore valid. [2] 3. It erred in not finding that the defendants’ furnace infringed the first, third and tourth claims of said re-issued letters patent sued on. ; 4. It erred in dismissing complainant’s bill of com- plaint. Letters patent of the United States were issued to Gideon Bantz, the appellant, foran Improvement in Boiler Furnaces, June 22, 1858 (Ree. p. 52), for a period of four- teen years. On February 6, 1872, said letters patent were re-iss [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_gideon-bantz-appellant-vs-david-fantz-et-al_1881_330%3A0. Public record. Not legal advice.