was also a conical drill-proof bolt, made of iron and steel. Our modes of fastening the above-described arbors were in different ways. Some we made conical, at the smaller end were made soft, so that we could rivet them down into a counter-sunk plate; others we cut a thread upon at the small end of the arbor or drill-proof bolt, which was done, and, when fitted up, the conical-shaped arbor or bolt was tempered; others were made with a thread cut upon the end of them, designed for a nut, which was designed to be used on the smaller end of them to fasten them more securely, so that they could not be withdrawn from the outside. The conical-shaped arbor, with the thread cut upon the arbor, was designed to be screwed into the inner plate of a series of plates, and then a key-seat cut in each of the threads of the plate and of the arbor, so that keys could be driven in to prevent their being unscrewed and withdrawn from the outside, thereby making them secure against the drill or the use of the sledge-hammer or other tools for forcing them in, being of a conical shape, or from removing any of the series of plates through which they passed."

It is apparent from this testimony that the appellant regarded the double conical-shaped arbor or plug, that is, the cored conical block, and the single conical-shaped arbor or plug, as being the same invention. He was endeavoring to carry back to 1858 or 1859 the invention covered by claim 3 of his patent of 1867. The only difference he makes between the double and the single arbor is that the former had a core removed from it. The latter was solid. Both, he says, were drill-proof, and had the same further design or object, namely, to secure together a series of plates in safes. He also says, that in 1859 or 1860 he made burglar-proof safes of a series of plates composed of iron and steel joined together, using in them these single conical bolts or arbors, for the express purpose of more securely fastening the plates together. He then describes the cutting of a thread upon the arbor and one of the plates to screw the arbor into the inner plate, and cutting a key-seat in the two threads, and putting in a key to prevent the arbor from being unscrewed from the outside. All this describes exactly what is covered by claim 3 of the patent sued on.

In his testimony in the present suit the appellant states that

he made three safes between 1859 and 1864 which were burglar-proof, and had conical bolts for fastening together the different plates of metal. One of them had the double conical bolt and no single bolt, and was sold to a firm in Dayton, Ohio. One was made in 1858 or 1859, to be exhibited at a fair in Ohio, and was sold to a banker in Lafayette, Indiana. It had the single drill-proof conical arbors in the doors. The third one was made to be exhibited at a fair held in 1860, and was sold to the treasurer of Loraine County, Ohio. It had a few of the single conical arbors. It does not distinctly appear that the single conical bolts in the Lafayette and Loraine County safes had screw-threads cut on them, but the appellant testifies in this case that the double arbor of his patent of 1860 had a screw-thread cut upon it running through one or more of the inner plates, for the purpose of holding it.

It clearly appears, from the testimony of the appellant himself, that the idea of making a claim to the invention covered by claim 3 of the patent sued on arose from the introduction into safes, in 1866 or early in 1867, of plates of steel and iron welded together. This enabled the value of the screw-threaded conical bolt to be more fully developed, because the screwthread could be made more effective the whole length of the bolt. But the whole invention existed in the bolt of the patent of 1860. There was no invention in adding to the solid conical bolt the screw-thread of the cored conical bolt.

Moreover, the use and sale of the solid conical bolts in the Lafayette and Loraine County safes, even though those bolts had no screw-threads on them, constituted a use and sale of the invention covered by claim 3 of the patent in suit. The application for that patent was made in March, 1867, and the patent was granted under the provisions of the act of July 4, 1836, c. 357, and of the act of March 3, 1839, c. 88. Within the meaning of sects. 7 and 15 of the act of 1836, as modified by sect. 7 of the act of 1839, the invention covered by claim 3 of the patent in suit was in use and on sale more than two years before the appellant applied for that patent, and such use and sale were, also, with the consent and allowance of the appellant, and the use was a public use. It is contended that the safes were experimental, and that the use was a use for

experiment. But we are of opinion that this was not so, and that the case falls within the principle laid down by this court in Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. 120. The invention was complete in those safes. It was capable of producing the results sought to be accomplished, though not as thoroughly as with the use of welded steel and iron plates. The construction and arrangement and purpose and mode of operation and use of the bolts in the safes were necessarily known to the workmen who put them in. They were, it is true, hidden from view, after the safes were completed, and it required a destruction of the safes to bring them into view. But this was no concealment of them or use of them in secret. They had no more concealment than was inseparable from any legitimate use of them. As to the use being experimental, it is not shown that any attempt was made to see if the plates of the safes could be stripped off, and thus to prove whether or not the conical bolts were efficient. The safes were sold, and, apparently, no experiment and no experimental use were thought to be necessary. The idea of a use for experiment was an afterthought. An invention of the kind might be in use and no burglarious attempt be ever made to enter the safe, and it might be said that the use of the invention was always experimental until the burglarious attempt should be made, and so the use would never be other than experimental. But it is apparent that there was no experimental use in this case, either intended or actual. The foregoing views, which are controlling to show that claim 3 of the patent in suit cannot be sustained, are in accordance with those announced in Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U. S. 333.

Decree affirmed.

VOL. XVII.

7

GREEN BAY AND MINNESOTA RAILROAD COMPANY v. UNION STEAMBOAT COMPANY.

A railroad corporation, whose railroad extends across the State of Wisconsin from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River, and which is authorized, by its charter, to make "such contracts with any other person or corporation whatsoever as the management of its railroad and the convenience and interest of the corporation and the conduct of its affairs may in the judgment of its directors require ;" and, by general laws, to make such contracts with any railroad company, whose road terminates on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, " as will enable them to run their roads in connection with each other in such manner as they shall deem most beneficial to their interest," and "to build, construct, and run, as part of its corporate property, such number of steamboats or vessels as they may deem necessary to facilitate the business operations of such company or companies;" and also "to accept from any other State or Territory of the United States, and use, any powers or privileges applicable to the carrying of persons and property by railway or steamboat in said State or Territory;" has the power, for the purpose of carrying passengers and freight in connection with its own railroad and business, to enter into an agreement with the proprietors of steamboats running, by way of the Great Lakes, between its eastern terminus and Buffalo in the State of New York, by which it guarantees that the gross earnings of each boat for two years shall amount to a certain sum.

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Wisconsin.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Walter C. Larned for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Francis J. Lamb for the defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the court. This is an action brought by the Union Steamboat Company, a corporation established by the laws of the State of New York at Buffalo in that State, against the Green Bay and Minnesota Railroad Company, a corporation established by the laws of the State of Wisconsin, and having its principal place of business in this State.

The declaration alleges that the defendant was chartered in 1866, and was organized to construct and operate a railroad across the State of Wisconsin east and west from the city of Green Bay to the Mississippi River, and its road was built and actually opened for business in December, 1873; that "it became important for said defendant to make arrangements, in

regard to the business of carrying passengers and freight carried eastwardly over its road and destined for points east of said city of Green Bay and out of the State, for their transportation east, as well as to secure business of carrying passengers and freight arriving at or being moved west by way of the defendant's route and railway;" and on the 9th of September, 1873, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract under seal, whereby, in consideration that the plaintiff would, during the season of navigation in 1876 and in 1877, run between Buffalo and Green Bay, by the way of the Great Lakes, and touching at intermediate ports, two steam propellers, then belonging to the plaintiff, for the purpose of carrying passengers and freight to and from Green Bay, in connection with the defendant's railway and business and docks at that place, the defendant duly undertook and guaranteed to the plaintiff that the gross earnings of each propeller in such business should be for each of the two years the sum of $45,000 at least, and that, if it should be less, the defendant would pay the difference to the plaintiff on or before the first of January next succeeding the close of navigation in each year.

The plaintiff further alleges that it duly put the propellers on the route and kept them running thereon, in connection with the defendant's business and in accordance with the contract, during the seasons of 1876 and 1877, and in all respects duly performed all the conditions of the contract on its part; that the gross earnings of each propeller for each season fell short of the amount guaranteed by a certain sum named, which thereupon became due and payable to the plaintiff from the defendant, according to the contract, on the first of January following; and that the two corporations were duly authorized and empowered by their respective charters and the laws of Wisconsin to make the contract.

The answer denies that the defendant was so empowered, and avers that it has no information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to whether the plaintiff was so empowered; admits the making of the contract stated in the declaration, and sets forth other provisions of that contract, with which it alleges that the plaintiff had not complied. The plaintiff filed a replication denying the allegations of the answer. Upon a