Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/305

 metallic doors and metallic door frames, with a series of wooden pigeon-holes, forming a continuous metallic frontage, substantially as described, frames and wood-work being fastened together in some suitable manner.

The second claim contains the limitation that the means of securing frames to wood-work is by rivets or bolts. The third claim contains the limitations of the first claim of the original patent, and is not alleged to have been infringed.

As thus construed there is no question in regard to the infringement of the first and second claims. The defendant's boxes are a series of separate and complete wooden boxes with metallic doors and metallic door frames; the flanges of the door frames being so wide that a continuous metallic frontage is formed, and the frames being closely fastened to the front and sides of the wood-work. When arranged in a series the boxes are secured to each other in this way. Each box is provided on both sides with vertical grooves, and on the top and bottom with transverse grooves, When the boxes are placed in position, i. e., side by side and one above another, wooden pins are placed in these grooves, and thus the boxes are keyed or fastened together. The unlawful claims introduced into the re-issue it is proper to disclaim. O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62; Schillinger v. Gunther, 16 O. G. 905.

Let there be an interlocutory decree for an injunction, and for an account of profits and damages, as respects the first and second claims of the patent, but without costs.


 * 1) —Rev. St. § 725.—The meddling with property, constructively attached, does not constitute a contempt under section 725 of the Revised Statutes.

In Equity, at Chambers.