Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/108

 94 FEDERAL REPORTER. �Specimens of internally-graduated glass-ware manufactured under the Hobbs patent, and by the defendants in accordance with the Block patent, have been submitted to the inspection of the court as exhibits in the case. The difference between these specimens is that in the former the graduation marks extend only partly around the glass cup, while in the latter the graduations extend entirely around the cup. In all other respects the specimens of the two manufac- tures are. substantially alike. In Hobbs' improvement the desired graduations are in the first instance made upon the face of the plun- ger, and thereby corresponding graduations are made in the glass- ware, while in the Block plunger the edges of the rings form the graduations ; but the principle of the two plungers is identical, their methods of operation practically alike, and the resuit substantially the same. The extension of the graduations entirely around the glass may have its advantage; but if it were conceded that auch extension is a patentable improvement upon Hobbs' invention, still this would not justify the defendants in using his invention. �Upon the whole, we are of opinion that the infringement com- plained of is established. Let a decree be drawn in favor of the plaintiffs. ���Haeeiman V. The Eockawat Bbach Pieb Oo. �{District Court, M. D. New York. July 20, 1881.) �1. JuBiBDiOTioN — Attachmhnt— Stipulation. �Where property was attached upon process issued in an action m personam, the detendant not being found, and the next day the secretary of the corpora- tion defendant appeared and oflered to accept service, and a motion before the court to vacate the attachment being denied, the property seized was af ter- ■wards released upon a stipulation for its value voluntarily given by the defend- ant, and the action was then tried, held, that it was not open to the stipulators to say that the court had not, acquired jurisdiction to enter a decree upon the stipulation ; that the libellants were entitled to a decree beoause the marshal's return showed a regular attachment, and the evidence shows that it was made before the appearance of the defendant, and its ofler to accept service waa made. �In Admiralty. �Benediet, Taft e Benedict, for libellant. Elihu Root, for respondents. �Benedict, D. J. This is an action in personam upon a charter- party. There appears to be no dispute in regard to the liability. ��� �