For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER MANDAMUS. II. SUBJECTS AND PURPOSES OF RELIEF. (B) Acts and Proceedings of Public Offcers and Boards and Municipalities. 73(1) (App.D.C.) "Mandamus" is appropriate remedy to compel Board of Tax Appeals to take jurisdiction of appeal.-U. S. ex rel. Dascomb v. Board of Tax Appeals of the U. S., 16 F.(2d) 337. MARITIME LIENS. I. NATURE, GROUNDS, AND SUBJECTMATTER IN GENERAL. (B) Under Statutory Provisions. 17 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Grant of right to sue in admiralty does not confer maritime lien (Jones Act. § 33 [Comp. St. § 8337a]).-The Pinar Del Rio, 16 F. (2d) 984. II. CREATION, OPERATION, AND EFFECT. 40 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Reservation of title to engine installed in boat does not defeat maritime lien for unpaid price.-The E 270, 16 F. (2d) 1005. 43 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Seller's agreement to accept personal notes for engine installed in boat is not waiver of maritime lien for unpaid price. The E 270, 16 F. (2d) 1005. (A) Creation and Existence. 8(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Contract held one for expert's services, terminable at will by either party. Fahrenwald v. Ohio Steel Foundry Co., 16 F. (2d) 658. Contract for services is terminable at will, in absence of other provision.-Id. II. SERVICES AND COMPENSATION. 62 (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Contract, to entitle master to inventions of employee, need not be written, nor contain formal words of agreement.-Magnetic Mfg. Co. v. Dings Magnetic Separator Co., 16 F.(2d) 739. Under contract requiring employee to devote part time to improvement of device, patent procured by him belongs to employer.—İd. Finding of contract contemplating development by employee of new or improved device held warranted.-Id. III. MASTER'S LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO SERVANT. (B) Tools, Machinery, Appliances, Places for Work. and 103(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Duties of employer to furnish reasonably safe appliances_and properly inspect same are absolute.-J. R. Hanify Co. v. Westberg, 16 F. (2d) 552. 111(11⁄2) (U. S. C. C. A. N. J.) Failure of couplers at any time to couple by impact sustains charge of violation of Safety Appliance Act (Comp. St. § 8605 et seq.).-Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Auchenbach, 16 F.(2d) 550. 121(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Guard furnished for machine must be suitable for performance of work required (Rev. St. Mo. 1919, § 6787). -Kokesch v. Excelsior Powder Mfg. Co., 16 F. (2d) 574. Master, required by statute to guard machinery, must provide guard which does not interfere with operation of machine (Rev. St. Mo. 1919, §§ 6786, 6787).—Id. 129(6) (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Liability for injury to employee may depend on whether violation of Safety Appliance Act was proximate cause (Comp. St. § 8605 et seq.).-Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Auchenbach, 16 F. (2d) 550. Where violation of Safety Appliance Act was efficient cause of injury to employee, question of proximate cause does not arise (Employers' Liability Act [Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665]).-Id. (C) Methods of Work, Rules, and Orders. 135 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Railroad, operating shifting engine and car in customary manner, held not liable for death of section hand (Employers' Liability Act [Comp. St. §§ 86578665]).-Kemmerer v. Reading Co., 16 F. (2d) 924. (E) Fellow Servants. 180(2, 3) (App.D.C.) Railroad, owning office building and operating passenger elevator, held not "common carrier," within statute abolishing fellow-servant doctrine (Employers' Liability Act June 11, 1906; Employers' Liability Act April 22, 1908. as amended by Act April 5, 1910 [Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665]).— Southern Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 16 F. (2d) 517. Statute abolishing fellow-servant doctrine as to common carriers held to relate solely to commerce (Employers' Liability Act June 11, 1906).-Id. 185 (6) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) That defective appliance was selected by fellow servant from quantity furnished does not relieve employer Hanify Co. v. Westberg, 16 F. (2d) 552. from liability for injury to workman.-J. R. 188 (App.D.C.) Federal courts do not recognize superior servant doctrine, holding master liable for negligence of superintendent, manager, or foreman.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 16 F. (2d) 517. 189(1) (App.D.C.) Master is liable for negligence of agent in charge of separate department.--Southern Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 16 F. (2d) 517. 196 (App.D.C.) "Fellow servants" are those engaged in common pursuit, under control of same master.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 16 F.(2d) 517. 197 (App.D.C.) Operator of passenger elevator held fellow servant with engineer doing work in connection with operation of elevator.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 16 F. (2d) 517. 201(3) (App.D.C.), Notwithstanding fellowservant doctrine, employer must provide reasonably safe place and tools and reasonably competent employees.--Southern Ry. Co. V. Taylor, 16 F. (2d) 517. (H) Actions. of 270 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Testimony workman within Oregon statute, as to whether he had time to get away from place of work to avoid injury, held immaterial (Laws Or. 1913, p. 188).-Bowman-Hicks Lumber Co. v. Robinson, 16 F. (2d) 240. 270 (9) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Employer's testimony as to absence of similar accidents held immaterial.-Bowman-Hicks Lumber Co. V. Robinson, 16 F. (2d) 240. 278(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Recovery by longshoreman for injury by breaking of defective sling held sustained by evidence.-J. R. Hanify Co. v. Westberg, 16 F. (2d) 552. 286 (22) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Whether saw guard was adequate held for jury (Rev. St. Mo. 1919, §§ 6786, 6787).-Kokesch v. Excelsior to improvement (Gen. Code Ohio, §§ 8310, 8311, Powder Mfg. Co., 16 F. (2d) 574. 8321-1).-In re Taylor, 16 F. (2d) 303. 286 (32) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Evidence of rail-171(1) (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Interested innocent road's negligence as to car inspector held insufficient for jury.-Brill v. Reading Co., 16 F. (2d) 461. III. MINES AND MINERALS. OF MINES, QUARRIES, (A) Statutory and Official Regulations. 92 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Texas statute, conferring power on Railroad Commission to regulate drilling of oil wells, held constitutional (Const. Tex. 1876, art. 10, § 2, as amended in 1890; Laws Tex. 1919, c. 155).-Oxford Oil Co. v. Atlantic Oil & Producing Co., 16 F. (2d) 639. Regulation prohibiting drilling of oil wells nearer than 150 feet to property line without special authority held reasonable and valid.-Id. 24(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Private suit not maintainable to enjoin violation of Sherman Anti-Trust Act (Comp. St. §§ 8820-8823, 8827-8830).-Continental Securities Co. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 16 F. (2d) 378. V. third persons may rely on record of construction mortgage containing covenants for application of proceeds (Gen. Code Ohio, § 83211). In re Taylor, 16 F. (2d) 303. Statute giving mortgages lien from filing date, though still effective, yields to subsequent act providing different rule under particular circumstances (Gen. Code Ohio, §§ 8321-1, 8542).-Id. IV. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF 209 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Trustee under mortgage held not entitled to file claim against corporation after appointment of receiver.-Fitkin V. Century Oil Co. (Maryland), 16 F. (2d) 22. Trustee in deed of trust has no right to file claim therefor, in absence of express authority. -Id. Trustee is not creditor because holding legal title to security.-Id. tender 300 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Insufficient IX. FORECLOSURE BY EXERCISE OF 330 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Statute changing limitation applicable to mortgage liens held unconstitutional as to previously executed mortgage, and prior statute applies (Vernon's Sayles' Tex. Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 5693).-Drumright v. Texas Sugarland Co., 16 F.(2d) 657. X. FORECLOSURE BY ACTION. Any right of private suitor to injunction suit against control of railroad by competing line does not extend to one buying into controlled line (Clayton Act, $$ 7, 16 [Comp. St. $$ 8835g, 883501; Sherman Act [Comp. St. 88427(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ariz.) Owner of equity 8820-8823, 8827-8830]).—Id. Injunctive relief, given by Clayton Act against threatened damage for violation of anti-trust laws, does not extend to a suit to dissolve prior completed combination (Clayton Act, § 16 [Comp. St. § 88350]).-Id. MORTGAGES. See Chattel Mortgages. III. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. (D) Lien and Priority. close mortgage.-Woods v. First Nat. Bank, (1) Judgment or Decree and Execution. (N) Fees and Costs. 151(1) (U.S.D.C.Ohio) As respects priorities, mortgage given before commencement of improvement, authorizing mortgagee to pay out proceeds for improvement, held construction mortgage, governed by statute (Gen. Code 581(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Insufficient tenOhio, §8321-1).-In re Taylor, 16 F. (2d) 303. der held not to deprive holder of right to foreclose and recover attorney's fees.-Orient Petroleum Co. v. Wichita State Bank & Trust Co., 16 F. (2d) 417. 163(2) (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Construction mortgage held prior to subsequently recorded purchase mortgage to extent proceeds were applied to improvement (Gen. Code Ohio, §§ 8310, 8311, 8321-1).-In re Taylor, 16 F. (2d) 303. 163(3) (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Construction mortgage held prior to subsequently recorded mechanics' liens to extent proceeds were applied MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER IV. PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL OR OTH- Riparian owner's utmost limit of title to (B) Ordinances and By-Laws in General. 108 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Charter authorizing referendum ordinances on petition of 10 per cent. of "registered voters," and further petition of 15 per cent. of "electors," held to require signatures of 25 per cent. of registered voters. City of Dayton, Ohio v. City Ry. Co., 16 F. (2d) 401. Charter provision, authorizing referendum ordinances initiated by petitions signed by 25 per cent. of registered voters, is jurisdictional.-Id. of abutting 36 (3) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Rights owner below high-water mark are subject to police power of state and federal control of navigation.-U. S. v. Pennsylvania Salt Mfg. Co., 16 F. (2d) 476. lands between high and low water mark in Sole right of one other than landowner to Pennsylvania is right of navigation.-Id. Under Pennsylvania law, right of person not owner to navigate over land between high and low water mark may be curtailed by state. -Id. Landowner, with state's permission, may obstruct navigation over lands.-U. S. v. Pennsylvania Salt Mfg. Co., 16 F. (2d) 476. Method of testing sufficiency of petitions for referendum elections provided by Constitution36(4) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) and general laws held inapplicable to city of Dayton, Ohio..-Id. VII. CONTRACTS IN GENERAL. 250 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Rule of contemporaneous and subsequent construction of contract applies to municipalities.-Nolte v. Hudson Nav. Co., 16 F. (2d) 182. X. POLICE POWER AND REGULATIONS. (A) Delegation, Extent, and Exercise of Power. 619 (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Municipalities in Virginia may not prescribe rates for public service corporations.-Lynchburg Traction & Light Co. v. City of Lynchburg, 16 F. (2d) 763. XI. USE AND REGULATION OF PUBLIC Contract held to preclude city from recovering for use of bulkhead by navigation company, irrespective of city's right to revoke license. -Id. Contract granting right to use bulkhead held within authority of board of docks.-Id. NATIONAL BANKS. See Banks and Banking, 248–287. NATURALIZATION. See Aliens, ~68. NAVIGABLE WATERS. See Wharves. I. RIGHTS OF PUBLIC. 16 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Right of navigation is not right to have navigable waters to navigate. -U. S. v. Pennsylvania Salt Mfg. Co., 16 F. (2d) 476. 20(8) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Drawbridge owner must excuse failure to open draw promptly on request.-Donovan v.. New York Cent. R. Co., 16 F. (2d) 611. Failure to open railroad drawbridge on signal of tug held justified by approaching train. Id. Railroad traffic on drawbridge need not be imperiled to allow immediate passage of vessels.-Id. H. LANDS UNDER WATER. 36(1) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) State of Pennsylvania has title to lands under navigable waters below low-water mark.-U. S. v. Pennsylvania Salt Mfg. Co., 16 F. (2d) 476. 36(2) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) State law controls rights of riparian owner in tidal lands above low-water mark.-U. S. v. Pennsylvania Salt Mfg. Co., 16 F.(2d) 476. State's consent to riparian owner's obstruction of navigation below low-water mark includes right to build on and use state's lands. -Id. Riparian owner's construction in navigable waters is not land below low-water mark.-Id. Riparian owner, constructing slip overlapping land of defendant, adjoining owner consenting held not entitled to exclusive right to charge wharfage for use of defendant's pier, when use of slip was included.-Id. Right of navigation in waters over land is public easement.-Id. III. RIPARIAN AND LITTORAL RIGHTS. 39 (2) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Rights exercised by riparian owner within boundaries of land only are rights of landowner.-U. S. v. Pennsylvania Salt Mfg. Co., 16 F. (2d) 476. NE EXEAT. 14 (App.D.C.) In summary proceedings, equity court has power, on rule to show cause to declare ne exeat bond forfeited.-Murphy v. Paris, 16 F. (2d) 515. NEGLIGENCE. See Master and Servant, 103-286. I. ACTS OR OMISSIONS CONSTITUTING (C) Condition and Use of Land, Buildings, 55 (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Builder of passenger elevator is not liable for defect, unless reasonable prudence would have discovered and remedied it.-Hoskins v. Otis Elevator Co., 16 F.(2d) 220. Builder of passenger elevator held not liable for injury caused by falling of car through failure of safety device, of approved design, to work.-Id. III. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. (A) Persons Injured in General. 83 (App.D.C.) Instruction denying recovery, under humanitarian rule, if defendant's negligence was discovered in time for plaintiff Chr. Heurich Brewing Co. v. McGavin, 16 to have avoided injury, held properly refused. F. (2d) 334. 136 (26) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Contributory negligence is for jury.-Bowman-Hicks Lumber Co. v. Robinson, 16 F.(2d) 240. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. See Bills and Notes. NEW TRIAL. See Criminal Law, 923. NONSUIT. See Dismissal and Nonsuit. NOTES. See Bills and Notes. NOTICE. 6 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Notice of facts inciting reasonably prudent person to inquiry is notice of facts reasonably diligent inquiry would develop.-Essex Nat. Bank v. Hurley, 16 F. (2d) 427. OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS. See Constitutional Law, 113–171. OFFICERS. See Judges; Public Service Commissions; Receivers. PARENT AND CHILD. See Guardian and Ward; Infants. PARTIES. For parties on appeal and review of rulings as to parties, see Appeal and Error. For parties to particular proceedings or instruments, see also the various specific topics. I. PLAINTIFFS. 6(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Real parties in interest must bring suit.-Fitkin v. Century Oil Co. (Maryland), 16 F. (2d) 22. PATENTS. I. SUBJECTS OF PATENTS. II (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Patent claiming combination of means operating together to perform function held valid, and not attempt to patent principle.-Bake-Rite Mfg. Co. v. Tomlinson, 16 F. (2d) 556. II. PATENTABILITY. (A) Invention. 22 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Selection of better, but equivalent, material is not "invention," when difference is only one of degree.-Western Willite Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co., 16 F.(2d) 446. Where reactions of chemical elements are well understood, the usual rule as to equivalents applies.-Id. 25 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Aggregation of old elements is not patentable, nothing new being "invented" or "discovered."-Bryant Electric Co. v. Reno Sales Co., 16 F. (2d) 789. New element added to aggregation of old ones may make patentable combination.--Id. 26(1) (App.D.C.) Hair curler, having metallic core, covering therefore, and metallic caps over ends, held to disciose invention.-Application of McClaire, 16 F. (2d) 351. 26(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) That better result is obtained by new combination of old elements does not necessarily show invention.-Western Willite Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co., 16 F. (2d) 446. 28 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Patentable mechanical device may be subject-matter of design patent.-Boyle v. Rousso, 16 F.(2d) 666. "Test of patentability" of design is impression on eyes of ordinary persons.-Id. 35 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Extensive use will be considered on issue of invention only in doubtful cases.-Western Willite Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co., 16 F. (2d) 446. 36 (App.D.C.) Commercial success is evidence of invention, affecting right to patent.Application of McClaire, 16 F. (2d) 351. (B) Novelty. 39 (App.D.C.) Application for patent on method of determining quality of cotton linters held not to disclose invention.-Application of Herbener, 16 F. (2d) 538. 41 (App.D.C.) Application for patent for device for uncoupling cars held not to disclose invention. In re Vissering, 16 F.(2d) 542. (D) Anticipation. 54 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Prior patent, not solving problem, does not constitute anticipation.Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Springfield Boiler Co., 16 F.(2d) 964. Device requiring modification to accomplish object does not constitute anticipation.—Id. 72 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Patent may be anticipated by prior patents, using not the same, but equivalent, elements in combination.-Western Willite Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co., 16 F. (2d) 446. (F) Abandonment. 82 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal) Patentee cannot include in patent invention embraced in prior one to himself Gladding-McBean Corporation v. N. Clark & Sons, 16 F.(2d) 50. Invention disclosed, but not claimed, in patent, is dedicated to public.-Id. Patent for process and article disclosed in prior patent to same patentee held dedicated to public, and void, in absence of filing of individual application.-Id. III. PERSONS ENTITLED TO PATENTS. 91(1) (App.D.C.) Applicant in interference proceeding, copying claims of another patent, has burden of proof of priority.-Gray v. Greene, 16 F.(2d) 332. for 91(1) (App.D.C.) Applicant patent, claiming priority over previous patent, has burden of proof.-Robinson v. Davis, 16 F.(2d) 543. 91 (4) (App.D.C.) Applicant for patent for invention relating to electrical furnaces held not entitled to award of priority.-Gray v. Greene, 16 F. (2d) 332. IV. APPLICATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS THEREON. 104 (App.D.C.) Doubt as to invention should be resolved in favor of applicant for patent.-Application of McClaire, 16 F.(2d) 351. 109 (App.D.C.) Applicant for patent, after dissolution of interference held estopped to amend application by addition of claims necessitating another declaration of interference.-Application of Doble. 16 F. (2d) 350. 112(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Regularly granted patent is prima facie evidence of its validity. -Dovan Chemical Co. v. Corona Cord Tire Co., 16 F. (2d) 419. 112(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Presumption of patentable difference arising from granting patent does not negative infringement.-Bake-Rite Mfg. Co. v. Tomlinson, 16 F.(2d).556. 112(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Granting of pat ent for design raises strong legal presumption of patentability.-Boyle v. Rousso, 16 F.(2d) 666. 112(3) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) That patent is issued makes out prima facie case of exclusive right thereto.-I. P. Frink, Inc., v. Erickson, 16 F. (2d) 496. For cases in Dec.Dig, & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 114 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Evidence as to paten- Bryant Electric Co. v. Reno Sales Co., 16 F. tee's failure to apply for reissue because of (2d) 789. poverty and sickness held insufficient to authorize relief (Comp. St. §§ 9460, 9461.)-Hernandez v. Robertson, 16 F. (2d) 276. Alleged irregularities in Patent Office held not to show fraud or intentional impropriety, authorizing relief against refusal of reissue patent.-Id. VII. REISSUES. 178 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) U-bar may be claimed as equivalent of angle bar, where form immaterial to invention.-William H. Lutton Co. v. Lord & Burnham Co., 16 F.(2d) 490. X. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CONTRACTS. (A) Rights of Patentees in General. 138(1) (App.D.C.) Delay in filing applica-183 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Inventor abandoning tion for reissue patent, broadening claims, held not excused.-Application of Parks, 16 F. (2d) 541. 140 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Applicant for reissue patent may add claims to cure defects in claims of original patent.-Hommel Mfg. Co. v. East Side Mfg. Co., 16 F. (2d) 1008. 141 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Enlargement of specifications and claims in reissue held unwarranted, where patentee, with full knowledge, failed to include such matters in original patent.Toupet-Taylor Engineering Co. v. Red Dog Mfg. & Supply Co., 16 F. (2d) 454. 141 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Reissue patent, covering different invention than_original patent. is void.-Hommel Mfg. Co. v. East Side Mfg. Co., 16 F.(2d) 1008. 141 (App.D.C.) Applicant for reissue of apparatus patent cannot broaden his claims to correspond to broader claims in application for process patent.-Application of Parks, 16 F. (2d) 541. 147 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Reissue of patent adjudged void for lack of invention is also void. -Erikson v. Frink Co., 16 F. (2d) 498. 147 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Reissue is invalid, if original patent is invalid for lack of invention (Comp. St. § 9461).-Traitel Marble Co. v. U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co., 16 F. (2d) 170 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Patent must be construed as limited by prior inventions and prior state of art.-Hommel Mfg. Co. v. East Side Mfg. Co., 16 F. (2d) 1008. Cover numerous 173 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) In primary and useful invention "substantial" will and important differences in infringing device. -Bryant Electric Co. v. Reno Sales Co., 16 F. (2d) 789. 173 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Pioneer patent should be liberally construed, to secure owner full enjoyment of invention disclosed, unless he intended to claim only part of invention.-American Stainless Steel Co. v. Ludlum Steel Co., 16 F. (2d) 823. 177 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Patent for invention, combining old elements, if valid, must be strictly construed.-I. P. Frink, Inc., v. Erickson, 16 F. (2d) 496. 178 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) That device is entitled to wide range of equivalents does not entitle subcombinations to similar range.-Diamond Match Co. v. Sun Match Corporation, 16 F. (2d) 1. 178 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Equivalents carefully considered, where patent is of limited scope. application for patent after assignment, while acting as assignee's agent in prosecuting application, cannot thereafter secure patent in own name.-Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Day, 16 F. (2d) 4. Inventor has burden of proving intentional abandonment by assignee of patent under assignment with revesting clause.-Id. XII. INFRINGEMENT. (A) What Constitutes Infringement. 232 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Mere necessity of quenching infringing stainless steels in oil held not to avoid infringement of patent not disclosing necessity of quenching.-American Stainless Steel Co. v. Ludlum Steel Co., 16 F. (2d) 823. 234 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Noninterchangeability of parts in machine indicates noninfringement.-Diamond Match Co. v. Sun Match Corporation, 16 F. (2d) 1. 234 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) There is no infringement, where devices are different in construction and action.-Lektophone Corporation v. Western Electric Co., 16 F. (2d) 10. 235 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Infringement is tested by results in practical, not theoretical, operation.-Bryant Electric Co. v. Reno Sales Co., 16 F. (2d) 789. 237 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Manufacture of device under later patent held not material on issue of infringement.-Bake-Rite Mfg. Co. v. Tomlinson, 16 F. (2d) 556. 237 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Each member of invention composed of combination of mechanisms must be individually considered, to determine equivalency.-Diamond Match Co. v. Sun Match Corporation, 16 F. (2d) 1. 246 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Device does not infringe combination patent, if it omits element of combination.-Vibroplex Co. v. J. H. Bunnell & Co., 16 F. (2d) 975. 259 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Manufacturer, who by advertising solicits purchasers to use manufactured material for infringing articles, canStainless Steel Co. v. Ludlum Steel Co., 16 F. not deny contributory infringement.-American (2d) 823. (C) Suits in Equity. 288 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) In absence of showing that remedy at law was inadequate, patent infringement bill cannot be sustained as one for accounting only.-LeRoy v. De Vry Corporation, 16 F. (2d) 18. 288 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) That alleged infringer intervened in infringement suit against its customer held not to preclude it from suing to enjoin original complainant.-Erikson v. Frink Co., 16 F. (2d) 498. 288 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Infringement of patent in district held necessary to give District Court jurisdiction (Judicial Code, § 48 [Comp. St. $ 1030]).-Davis v. Motive Parts Corporation, 16 F. (2d) 148. 294 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Jurisdiction of patent infringement suit, filed shortly before expiration of patent, does not require issuance of injunction. Le Roy v. De Vry Corporation, 16 F.(2d) 18. 301(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Injunction seven months after expiration of patent, forbidding use or sale of articles made before expiration, |