Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/553

 BINCLAIB r. BACEDS. 539 �made, were of thë class of whips whioh were oir could be ^iurned in a lathe. If some of them had a backing of wood below the iron, it was not, in my opinion, the equivalent of that of the patent. �Wbether the invention of the first claim waa patentable, in view of the state of the art admitted in the specification, is certainly a nicequestion. Hull disclaims the process of tum- ing an article bo as to leave a "stump-shod" or piece to be eut off. This was done in turning the legs of chairs and other articles. I suppose he means that he disclaims any broad or general application of this mode of manufacture. As applied to a whip-stock with the peculiar benefit -which it gives, and the exact application which it requires, I think, upon the ■whole, it may be supported as being something more than the new application of an old method. The invention does not consist either in making a "stump-shod" or in sawing it off, but in combining the metallic load-piece of a whip-stock with the stump-shod in such a way that the stump-shod may be sawed off. �I find the first claim of the patent to bs valid, and to have been infringed. �Decree for the complainanta. ���SikoijAib and others v. Baoeus. �(Circuit Court, D. Massachvsette., 1880.) �1. Patent No. 45,344, granted to D. M. Moore in December, 1864, for an improTement in wreucbes, Md valid. �In Equity. �LowELL, G. J. The patent of D. M. Moore, No. 45,344, was granted in December, 1864, upon an application filed October 1, 1864, for an improvement in wrenches. The patented tool- is a wrench with a double-faced ratchet-wheel conneoted with two pawls, which are controUed by a lever and springs. The springs tend to keep the pawls in contact with both faces ����