Campbell v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 09 November 1881
• Citation: 9 F. 500
• Parties: CAMPBELL v. THE MAYOR, etc., OF NEW YORK.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

9 F. 500

CAMPBELL v. THE MAYOR, etc., OF NEW YORK.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

November 9, 1881

George H. Williams, for plaintiff.

Frederic H. Betts and Wyllis C. Betts, for defendant.

WHEELER D. J.

The plaintiff has title to letters patent No. 42,920, dated May 24, 1864, and issued to James Knibbs, assignor, for an improvement in steam fire-engine pumps, whereby such an engine, having constant power for discharging several streams of water through lines of hose of various lengths, may be made to throw fewer streams, or the same number through longer lines when the resistance to discharge would be greater, without varying the power, or causing undue strain upon the working parts or hose, by means of a passage from the discharge to the suction side of the pump, regulated by a valve, for the surplus water on the discharge side caused by the restriction upon the discharge. This suit is brought for an infringement of this patent, which is not denied, if the patent is valid. The validity of the patent is questioned upon the ground that Knibbs was not the first inventor of his improvement; that the same had been patented abroad prior to his invention; and that the same had been in public use and on sale in this country for more than two years prior to his application. The anticipations relied upon are steam fire-engines which were made by the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company, of Manchester, New Hampshire, the steam fire-engine Philadelphia, which was made by Reaney Neafie & Co., of Philadelphia, and the patent of R. A Wilder, No. 27,662, dated March 27, 1860. The foreign patents are the English one of Joseph Bramah, No. 1,948, dated April 19, 1793, and the French one to Benoit Duportail, No. 19,532 dated June 12, 1857. The facts as to the existence, knowledge of, and use of the devices in these fire-engines are to be found from a comparatively large mass of evidence, consisting of documents, drawings, pictures, and the somewhat conflicting testimony of numerous witnesses as to various facts and circumstances. Upon the whole, after much examination and consideration, it satisfactorily, and beyond any fair doubt, appears that, prior to the invention of Knibbs, the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company made and put into rotary steam fire-engines manufactured by them a passage for water leading from the suction to the discharge side of the engines, which could be opened and closed by a valve, for the purpose of having water carried through it, and past the pumping apparatus, and discharged through the hose by hydrant pressure, when the pumps were not operating, which was used at places where there was hydrant pressure for that purpose; and that Reaney, Neafie & Co. made and put into steam piston fire-engines, tubes leading from the suction and discharge parts of the engine toward each other until they met, and in one tube, from the place of meeting to the boiler, which could be opened and closed by valves, one in each branch, for the purpose of taking water from either the suction or discharge side into the boiler,-- the two branches leading from the suction and discharge sides constituting a passage controlled by two valves, through which water could be taken from the discharge to the suction side to relieve pressure on the discharge side; but it does not appear by that measure of clear proof, beyond any fair and reasonable doubt, which is necessary to defeat a patent, that either of these devices was ever, before that time, used for the purpose of passing water from the discharge to the suction side of the engines to relieve undue pressure on the discharge side, caused by reducing the number of discharge openings, or increasing the difficulties of discharge by lengthening the hose; nor that the utility to these passage-ways for that purpose was before that time known; neither does it at all appear that Knibbs derived any aid from either of these devices. The counsel for the defendant, after insisting strenuously that the passages were in fact used for the purposes of Knibbs' invention, likewise insist that in view of the existence of these things, if that only should be found, Knibbs only put an old device to a new use, which would not be patentable. This presents the question, on this part of the case, whether such prior knowledge and use of a like device, as is found to have been had, will defeat the patent. His invention was not to be used under all circumstances of the use of the engine. It was for use only in combination with the constant power for a larger discharge, and a restricted discharge.

The second claim of the patent, and the only one in controversy is for the connecting passage and valve for the purposes described and set forth, the principal of which purposes was the use in that combination. The statutes providing for defences to suits upon patents require defendants to set forth the...