Common Bench Reports

and cause of action in the writ and
count mentioned, did not first de-
scend or accrue within twenty years
next before the suing out the writ,-
and that, after B. was seised, and
twenty years and more before the
commencement of the action, viz. on
the 31st of January, 1798, B. discon-
tinued the possession of the tenements
aforesaid, and the receipt of the profits
thereof, and that, from that time,
neither B. nor the demandant was in
possession of the said tenements, or
the receipt of the profits thereof. To
the last plea the demandant replied,
that B., whilst seised of the tenements,
and before the discontinuance of the
possession thereof, or the receipt of
the rents and profits, viz. on the 31st
of January, 1798, enfeoffed one D.
(the father of the defendant) of the
said tenements, to hold in fee, and
that thereby the estate so devised to
B. was discontinued until the death of
B., and until the 1st of June, 1835,
and until the commencement of the
suit, and that B. died within twenty
years before the commencement of the
suit, and before the 31st of December,
1833, viz. on the 29th of April, 1831;
and, further, that on the 1st of June,
1835, the demandant was entitled to
maintain an action of formedon in the
descender in respect of the said tene-
ments, and so remained until the suing
out of the writ; and that B. never at
any time after the enfeoffment was
seised or possessed of or entitled to
the tenements, or to receive, and never
did receive, the rents and profits there-
of-Held,-affirming the judgment
of the court of Common Pleas on a de-
murrer to the replication to the last
plea, that the issue in tail of B. was

entitled to bring his formedon within

twenty years after B.'s death; the dis-
continuance of possession in the 3rd
section of the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 27, being,
the ceasing to possess when the party
so ceasing had a right to possess, which
B. could not have, after he had con-
veyed his estate to the feoffee. Rim-
ington v. Cannon, 18.

3. By his will, A. devised certain
freehold and personal property to
trustees (whom he also named execu-
tors) for payment of debts and lega-
cies; and, in the event of the property
so devised being insufficient for that
purpose, he devised all other his mes-
suages, &c., to the same trustees, in
trust to sell the same to satisfy the
debts and legacies, and to divide the
residue, if any, amongst all his chil-
dren,-" Provided, that, in case my
personal estate and my lands, &c.,
herein first above devised, shall be
sufficient to pay all my debts as afore-
said, then and in such case I give and
devise to my son B., my dwelling-house,
lands, &c., in F., for and during the
term of his natural life," remainder to
his issue, and, in default of issue, to
the testator's heir or heirs-at-law :-
Held, that the will gave B. an estate-
tail in the lands in F.; and that the
devise was not void for remoteness, by
reason of its being postponed till after
payment of debts; but that, inasmuch
as the estate was given to B., not abso-
lutely, but only in the event of the es-
tate first devised to the trustees prov-
ing sufficient for the payment of debts,
the allegation in the count, which im-
ported an absolute devise to B., was
not proved. Ib.

II. Costs in.

To a count in formedon, the tenant
pleaded three pleas, upon two of which

oil which is to lubricate the same; lastly, in arranging
and supporting verticle axles on pivots, so as to sustain
heavy weights thereon."

1852.

HOLMES

บ.

THE

NORTH-
WESTERN

- The following is a description of the drawings, so far LONDON AND
as was applicable to turn-tables :-" First, with reference
to the application of my said invention to turn-tables for RAILWAY CO.
changing the position of carriages upon railroads. Fi-
gures 1, 2, 3, 4 (sheet a) exhibits my improved turn-
table for railways; figure 1. being a plan of the upper
side of the table or platform on which the carriages are
placed, and figure 2. a plan of the framing, which is
sunk into the ground. Figure 3. is an elevation of the
entire machine, in which the parts shewn in figures 1.
and 2. may be seen in their proper positions. Figure
4. is a diametrical and vertical section of figure 3., in
the direction indicated by the dotted line 3 3 3 made
through figures 1. and 2. The letters of reference
wherever they occur indicate the same parts: a is
a vertical bearing-shaft which is fixed into the found-
ation frame b by its lower end, which is partly ta-
pered, and having at its upper end a steel centre
step c at d and d are two gun-metal collars which
fit loosely round the vertical bearing shaft a, and
within recesses made in the outer cylinder ee: f is
a circular flange bolted to the centre of the table or
platform g g at its under side: at the middle of this
circular flange ƒ is the conical pivot h, the apex of
which is formed of steel, and works in the steel step c:
ii is a massive flange cast to the outer cylinder e e, to
which are bolted a series of stay-bars jj, the upper ends
of which are bolted at equi-distant points near the per-
iphery of the table or platform: the effect of these stays
is, a general support and stability to the table or plat-
form at k k is a series of rails disposed in the usual
manner, for the passage to and fro of the carriages.
The action of this very improved turning-table is as fol-

1852.

HOLMES

v.
THE

NORTH-

WESTERN

lows:-A carriage being placed upon the table, the same
being turned in the usual manner, the pivot h is thereby
made to revolve on the steel cap c, and with it the whole

LONDON AND table, with its stay-bars, around the central bearing-shaft
a." After describing the other branches of the invention,
RAILWAY CO. the specification proceeded :-" Having now described
the nature of my invention of certain improvements in
mechanism applicable to turn-tables for changing the
position of carriages upon railroads, and illustrated their
application to that purpose, and to castors for furniture,
and axles for carriages, I wish it to be understood that
I do not limit the application of my said invention to the
purposes herein before pointed out; but I claim my said
invention as applicable to all kinds of machinery in
which axles are employed, such as the collars of lathes,
the axles of pulleys, clocks, hinges, and so forth. And
I wish it also to be understood that I do not claim as
my invention all the parts of the apparatus or articles
described in this my specification, as, many such parts
are, or may be, in common use. But I do claim as my
invention,-first, generally the combination of parts
which constitute the turn-table for railways herein before
described and separately considered, the loose cylindri-
cal collars and pivots or points smaller than the caps
they work in, employed as antifriction mechanism in
turn-tables here shewn; also the stay-bars radiating
from a central vertical shaft or centre of motion, to sup-
port the table," &c.

It appeared, that, before Hancock's patent, the mode
of turning was by friction-rollers at the outer circum-
ference of the table. The material part of Hancock's
improvement consisted in transferring the pressure from
the outer edge of the table to the post. The only no-
velty in the plaintiff's invention consisted of the suspen-
sion-rods, which, it was contended, in connection with the
old turn-table, formed a new and useful machine.

1852.

HOLMES

THE

On the part of the defendants, it was contended, first,
that the specification did not properly describe Harrison's
invention,-secondly, that there was no evidence of in-
fringement, all that was proved being, that the defend- LONDON AND
ants had had a turn-table, constructed after Harrison's
method, for some time on their premises, but there being RAILWAY CO.
no evidence to shew how it came there.

A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, with nominal
damages, leave being reserved to the defendants to move
to enter the verdict for them, if the court should be of
opinion, either that the alleged invention was not duly
described in the specification, or that there was no evi-
dence of infringement.

Knowles, on a former day in this term, obtained a
rule nisi accordingly.

Watson, Hindmarch, and Price, shewed cause. The
main question is, whether the specification sufficiently
describes that which the plaintiff claims to be his in-
vention. The specification does not in terms claim any
particular part of the machine as new; but it claims the
whole in combination. It does not claim the suspend-
ing-rods or their application: it claims the combination
of all the parts which constitute the patentee's improved
turn-table. The claim is, for a combination or arrange-
ment of machinery, be it old or be it new. It is well
settled that an instrument of this sort is not to be con-
strued as a plea would be construed on special demurrer.
[Jervis, C. J. It is to be read fairly, and as a man pos-
sessing an ordinary knowledge of the subject would read
it.] Precisely so. The title of the patent is, "An
improved turning-table for railway purposes." The pa-
tentee in his specification describes his invention to con-
sist in "supporting the revolving plate or upper platform
of the turning-table, as also its stays, braces, arms, and

NORTH-
WESTERN

LETTERS-PATENT.

I. Construction of Specification.
A specification of an invention of
an improved turning-table for railway
purposes," described the alleged in-
vention to consist in supporting the
revolving plate or upper platform of the
turning-table, as also its stays, braces,
arms, and supports, on the top of a
fixed post, well braced, and resting on
or planted in the ground, the top of
which post forms a pivot for the table
to turn on, while support-arms radiat-
ing from a frame-work (the weight of
which is also sustained on the post)
moving round the bottom part of the
post, with friction-rollers, and fastened
to the outer edges of the plate, stay the
plate at all sides, and keep it steady,
to receive the superincumbent weight
of carriages or whatsoever is to be
turned upon it." And, after describing
the drawings, the specification con-
cluded thus :-"Now, whereas I claim
as my invention the improved turning-
table herein before described, and such
my invention being to the best of my
knowledge and belief entirely new, and
never before used in England, &c., I
do declare this to be my specification
of the same, and that I do verily
believe this my specification doth
comply in all respects, fully and with-
out reserve or disguise, with the
proviso in the hereinbefore in part re-
cited letters-patent contained; where-
fore I do hereby claim to maintain
exclusive right and privilege to my said
invention :'

Held, that the specification claimed
the whole combination as new; and,—
a jury having found that the only

novelty consisted of the suspending-
rods (all the rest having been, sub-
stantially, described in the specification
of a patent previously granted to
another person),—that the defendant,
in an action for an alleged infringement,
was entitled to a verdict on a plea
taking issue on the sufficiency of the
specification. Holmes v. The London
and North-Western Railway Company,
831.

II. Evidence of Infringement.

The plaintiff obtained letters-patent
for "improvements in the manufacture
of iron and steel." In his specification,
he declared his invention to be
(amongst other things), "the use of
carburet of manganese in any
process
whereby iron is converted into cast-
steel;" and he described the process
which he claimed, thus I do it, by
introducing into a crucible bars of steel
broken into fragments, mixtures of cast
and malleable iron, or malleable iron
and carbonaceous matter, along with
from one to three per cent. of their
weight of carburet of manganese." He
then stated that he did not claim the
use of the mixture of cast and malle
able iron, or malleable iron and carbo-
naceous matter, as any part of his
invention, but only the use of “carbu
ret of manganese, in any process for
converting iron into cast-steel."

The defendant produced the same
result, a superior and more valuable
description and quality of cast-steel,
-as certainly, and more cheaply, by
substituting for the carburet of man,
ganese, oxide of manganese and coal-
tar, which, being put into the crucible
with the iron, according to the evidence
of chemists, would form "carburet of
manganese" before the iron was in a

« Eelmine Jätka »

Books

Common Bench Reports: Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Common ...