Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/753

 BRETT V. QUINTAKD. ���741 ���V. Bidwell, 28 La. Ann. 382; Donnell v. State, 48 Miss. G31. As to the dis- -iriminatioiis on account of sex under the coiistitiition of Califomia see Ex parte Maguire, 12 Rep. 9. �Congress may, by legislation, provide against discriminations on account of color in Interstate commerce, but legislation by the states npon that siibject is a regulation of Interstate commerce, and tUereforo uuconstitutional and void. Hall v. Be Cuir, 95 U. S. 485. �Cincinnati, March, 1882. J. C. Haeper. ���Bbett and others, Adm'rs, etc., v. Quintabd, Adm'r, etc. �{Circuit Court, D. Connectieut. February 16, 1882.) �1. Patents — Operation of Dkvicks. �Where the plan of operation in two sets of devicea, intended to produce the same resuit, is radioally ditierent, the one is net an infringement on the other. 2 Same — Methods BraiLAH — Infbingement. �Where the inethod pursued by a subsequent invention is substantially the same as that under a prier invention, it is an infringement. �In Equity. �E. N. Dickerson, for plaintiffs. �John H. Perry and Henry T. Blake, for defendant. . Shipman, D. J. This is a bill in equity, originally in favor of Eliza Wells, as administratrix of the estate of Henry A. Wells, to restrain Elbridge Brown from the infringement by the use of the "Gill ma- chine" of reissued letters patent of May 19, 1868, No. 2,942, for "improvements in machinery for making hat bodies of fur," com- monly known as the "hat-body patent." Since the commencement of the suit the plaintiff and defendant have both died. The present plaintiffs are the administratrix and the administrator of the estate of Henry A. Wells. The defendant is the administrator of the estate of Elbridge Brown. Under the decree as directed to be modified, and the pleadings in the case as directed to be amended, the hearing was confined to the question of the infringement by the defendant's intes- tate of the fifth and sixth claims of reissue No. 2,942. I assume that the plaintiffs proved the uses of the Gill machine by the defendant's intestate. �The state of the art relating to the manufacture of hat bodies of fur, the characteristics of the Wells invention, the original Wells patent and its reissues, the first four claims of the last reissue, the mode of construction of his machine, and the general appearance and ��� �