페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

18.16.

Brown

V.

title and claim which Alexander Skinner had," there might be strong ground to contend, that it embraced all the lands to which Alexander Skinner had any right, title, or claim, at the time of his death, and thus have Jackson. included the lands in controversy. But the court is of opinion, that those words are qualified by the succeeding clause, which limits the conveyance to the right, title, and claim, which Alexander Skinner had at the time of his decease, and which Lee also held at the -time of his conveyance, and coupling both clauses together, the conveyance operated only upon lands, the right, title, and interest of which was then in Lee, and which he derived from Skinner. This construction is, in the opinion of the court, a reasonable one, founded on the apparent intent of the parties, and corroborated by the terms of the covenant of warranty. Upon any other construction, the deed must be deemed a fraud upon the prior purchaser: but in this way both deeds may well stand together, consistently with the innocence of all parties.

Judgment affirmed.

1818.

Evans Eaton.

(COMMON LAW.)

EVANS V. EATON.

Under the 6th section of the patent law of 1793, ch. 156, the defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice that he would prove at ure trial. that the machine, for the use of which, without license, the suit was brought, had been used previous to the alleged invention of the plaintiff, in several places which were specified in the notice, or in some of them, "and also at sundry other places in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and elsewhere in the United States." The defendant having given evidence as to some of the places specified, offered evidence as to others not specified. Held, that this evidence was admissible. But the pow em of the court, in such a case, are sufficient to prevent, and will be ex arcised to prevent, the patented from being injured by surprise.

Testimony, on the part of the plaintiff, that the persons of whose prior use of the machine the defendant had given evidence, had paid the plaintiff for licenses to use the machine since his patent, ought not to be absolutely rejected, though entitled to very little weight.

as to

Que, Whether, under the goneral patent law, improvements on different nachines can be comprehended in the same patent, so give a right to the e clusive use of several machines separately, as well as a right to the exclusive use of those machines in combination ?

་་

However this may be, the act of the 21st January, 1808. ch. 117 for the relief of Oliver Evans." authorizes the issuing to him of a patent for his invention, discovery, and improvements, in the art of manufacturing flour, and in the several machines applicable to that purpose.

Quare, Whether congress can constitutionally decide the fact, that a particular individual is an author or inventor of a certain writing or invention, so as to preclude judicial inquiry into the originality of the authorship or invention?

Be this as it may, the act for the relief of Oliver Evans does not deeide that fact, but leaves the question of invention and improvement open to investigation under the general patent law.

Under the sixth section of the patent law, ch. 156. if the thing secured by patent had been in use, or had been described in a public work an

terior to the supposed discovery, the patent is void, whether the pat-
entes had a knowledge of this previous use or description, or not.
Oliver Evans may claim, under his patent, the exclusive use of his in.
ventions and improvement in the art of manufacturing flour and meal,
and in the several machines which he has invented, and in his improve-
ment on machines previously discovered. But where his claims for an
improvement on a machine, he must show the extent of his improvement
so that a person understanding the subject may comprehend distinctly in
what it consists.

The act for the relief of O. E. is engrafted on the general patent law, so as to give him a right to sue in the circuit couri, for an infringement of his patent rights, although the defendant may be a citizen of the sam state with himself.

Error, to the circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff in error, against the defendant in error, for an alleged infringement of the plaintiff's patent right to the use of his improved hopper-boy, one of the several machines discov ered, invented, improved, and applied by him to the art of manufacturing flour and meal, which patent was granted on the 22d January, 1808. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave the notice hereaf ter stated. The verdict was rendered, and judgment given thereupon for the defendant in the court below; on which the cause was brought, by writ of error, to this

court.

At the trial in the court below, the plaintiff gave in evidence, the several acts of congress entitled respectively, "An act to promote the progress of useful arts, and to repeal the acts heretofore made for that purpose;" An act to extend the privilege of obtaining patents, for useful discoveries and inven

[ocr errors]

1818.

Evans

V.

Eaton

1818.

Evans
Eaton.

tions, to certain persons therein mentioned, and to enlarge and define penalties for violating the rights of patentees;" and "An act for the relief of Oliver Evans;" the said Oliver's petition to the secretary of state, før a patent,a and the patent thereupon grant

"TO JAMES MADISON, ESQ. SECRETARY OF STATE; The petition of Oliver Evans, of the city of Philadelphia, a citizen of the United States, respectfully showeth,

That your petitioner having discovered certain useful improvements, applicable to various purposes, but particularly to the art of manufacturing flour and meal, prays a patent for the same, agreeably to the act of congress, entitled, "an Act for the relief of Oliver Evans."

The principles of these improvements consist,

1. In the subdivision of the grain, or any granulated or pulverized substance; in elevating and conveying them from place to place in sm. Il separate parcels; in spreading, stirring turning and gathering them by regular and constant motion so as to subject them to artificial heat, the full action of the air to cool and dry the same when necessary, to avoid danger from fermentation, and to prevent insects from depositing their eggs during the operation of the manufacture.

2. In the application of the power which moves the mill, or other principal machine, to work any machinery which may be used to apply the said principles, or to perform the said operations by constant motion and continued rotation, to save expense and labour.

The machinery, by him already invented, and used for apply ing the above principles, consists of an improved elevator, an improved conveyor, an improved hopper-boy; an improved drill, and an improved kiln-drier. For a particular explanation of the principles, and a description and application of the ma chines which he has so invented and dissovered, he refers to the specifications and drawing hereunto annexed; and he is

ed to the said Oliver, dated the twenty-second day of January, in the year 1808; and further gave in eve

ready, if the secretary of the state shall deem it necessary, to deliver models of the said machines.

OLIVER EVANS.

1818,

Evans

Eaton..

DESCRIPTION.

Of the several machines invented by Olver Evans, and used in his improvement on the process of the art of manufacturing flour or meal from grain, and which are mentioned in his specification as applicable to other purposes.

No. 1.-THE ELEVATOR.

Plate vi. Fig 1. AB. represents an elevator for raising grain for the granary O, and conducting it by spouts into a number of different garners as may be necessary, where a mill grinds separate parcels for toll or pay. The upper pulley being set in motion, and the little gate A drawn, the buckets fill as they pass under the lower, and empty as they pass over the upper pulley, and discharge into the moveable spout B, to be by it di rected to any of the different garners.

Fig. 2 Part of the strap and bucket, showing how they are attached.

A, a bucket of sheet iron, formed from the plate 8, which is doubled up and rivited at the corners, and rivited to the strap.

B, a bucket made of tough wood, say willow, from the form 9, being bent at right angles at e c, one side and bottom covered with leather, and fastened to the strap by a small strap of leather, passing through its main strap, and tacked to its sides.

C, a lesser bucket of wood, bottomed with leather, the strap forming one side of it.

D, a lesser bucket of sheet iron, formed from the plate and rivited to the strap which forms one side of the bucket. Fig. 6. The form of a gudgeon for the lower pullev

[blocks in formation]
« 이전계속 »