Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/343

 bODGE V. FBA.REY. 329 �The Talcott buckle bas a metal box to receive the free end of the strap. It is both useful and omamental for a carriage curtain, but could not be applied to a shoe. The box is clamped to the fixed part of the strap very much as Hersome's is, but the plate of Hersome differe very decidedly from the box, and Talcott's buckle could not be decribed in the words of Hersome's patent. �In these patents for small articles slight differences, are often important; and, if Buch things are patentable at all, it must almost always be in virtue of a more useful adaptation to the needs of com- merce by small changes of structure, which in a great machine might be merely alternate modes of reaching a part of a general resuit. The defendant's expert says that the Hersome buckle is not suggested by the description of the Smith or Anchor buckle, and would be likely to be preferred ; and the evidence of the plaintiffs proves that it is preferred. The changes made by Hersome, the subject-matter being considered, were patentable improvements upon what vras known before ; and the defendant makes use of those improvementSe �Decree for the complainants. ���DoDGE, Trustee, v. Peabby and othere. �{Circuit Court, N. D. New York. June, 1881.) �1. Ingallb & BoDDiNQ's Patbnts— BooT AHD Shob MACHnra— Infbinsbment. If the correct construction of Ingalls & Budding's patents require that one element of their combination shall consist of a holding mechanism in which a shoe, while being polished, is held more or less rigidly, one who dispenses with such mechanism may or may not eflect a practical improvement, but he has^ donc that which distinguishes his machine from the class to which these patents ref er, and has not appropriated their inventions. �Wadleigh Fish and Chauncey Smith, for complainant. �J. E. Maynadier, for defendants. �Wallaoe, D. J. It will not be expected that this court will disre- gard the deliberate judgment of Jadge Shepley in Sweetser v. Hohnes^ upon the precise questions presented now, and place itself in direct antagonism to his conclusions, unless contrained to do so by the clear- est convictions that he erred. That judgment is entitled not only to. the respect due to a court of co-ordinate authority, but also to the high consideration due to the deliberate conclusions of a judge of large learning and experience in patent causes. �In Swetser v. Holmes Judge Shepley construes the complainant's. patents to belong to a class of inventions in which there is a combi- ��� �