text:
The Scotland (United States Supreme Court)/Opinion of the Court

The steamship 'Scotland,' belonging to the National Steam Navigation Company, a corporation of Great Britain, sailed from New York for Liverpool, on the 1st of December, 1866, with freight and passengers; and after reaching the high sea, opposite Fire Island light, ran into the American ship 'Kate Dyer,' bound from Callao, in the republic of Peru, to New York, laden with a cargo of guano. The 'Kate Dyer' immediately sank, and ship and cargo were totally lost. The steamship suffered so severely from the collision that she put back, but was unable to get further than the middle ground outside and south of Sandy Hook, where she also sank and became a total loss, with the exception of some stripping of ship's material, consisting of anchors, chains, rigging, and cabin furniture got from her by the Coast Wrecking Company before she went down. Libels in personam were filed in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against the Steam Navigation Company by the owners of the 'Kate Dyer,' the Peruvian government, owner of her cargo, and by a passenger and some of the crew who lost certain effects by the sinking of the ship. Personal service of process not being obtainable, the marshal attached another vessel belonging to the steamship company, lying in the port of New York, which was duly claimed and released on stipulation, and the steamship company appeared and responded to the libel. The answer admitted the collision, but denied that the 'Scotland' was in fault, and further alleged as follows: 'Respondents further answering say, that said steamer 'Scotland' was by said collision sunk and destroyed, and that there is no liability in personam against these respondents for said loss of the 'Kate Dyer." Proofs being taken, the District Court rendered a decree in favor of the libellants, which, on appeal to the Circuit Court, was substantially affirmed. The owners of the 'Kate Dyer' were awarded $56,000, with interest; the owners of the cargo, $57,375, with interest; and the passengers and crew, upwards of $11,000, with interest.

On the trial in the Circuit Court, the respondents, besides contesting the question of fault and general liability, again insisted upon the benefit of the limited liability law, and proposed for adoption by the court a certain finding of fact and conclusion of law looking to that end. The finding of fact was substantially adopted by the court as follows:--

'The steamer was, by reason of the said collision and in consequence thereof, so injured that, although at once put about, she could only reach the 'outer middle,' so called, on the west side of the channel south of Sandy Hook, where she sank and became a total loss, except that a large amount of anchors, chains, rigging, and cabin furniture, of the value of several thousand dollars, was saved from her and delivered to the agent of the respondents. She earned no freight, the voyage being broken up. The passage-money paid in advance by the passengers was $1,703.65; of this $225 was refunded to such of them as could not wait to be transported by the respondents in another vessel of their line; the remaining passengers were forwarded by the 'Queen,' and the expense charged to the 'Scotland.' Irrespective of the carriage of the passengers by the 'Queen,' the respondents paid return money as above, $225, and the expenses of bringing the passengers to New York, and taking care of them before they were reshipped, $566.83, in all, $791,83; the balance of the passage-money, $911.82, was credited to the 'Queen' and charged to the 'Scotland."

The conclusion of law proposed and insisted on by the respondents as legitimately arising upon this fact was as follows, to wit:--

'The liability of the respondents, as owners of the said steamship 'Scotland,' did not extend beyond the value of their interest in the vessel and her pending freight at the time of the collision; and the vessel having been lost by the collision, and no freight or passage money earned, the respondents are thereby discharged from any liability on account thereof.'

The Circuit Court, as before stated, refused any relief grounded on the limited liability law, but made a decree against the respondents for the total amount of damages sustained by the various parties in interest. To this conclusion the respondents excepted.

Both parties appealed from the decree, and the case is now before us for review. The appeal of the libellants was based on what they supposed to be an erroneous conclusion of the court in reference to the allowance of interest, and the estimation of the value of the cargo.

The principal question raised and argued on this appeal is, whether the steamship company is entitled to the benefit of a limited responsibility equal to the value of the steamship and freight after the collision occurred,-a liability which, in this case, as the vessel and freight were a total loss, would only amount to the value of the articles saved by the wrecking company. It is contended by the company that it is entitled to the benefit of such limitation, either under the general maritime law or under the act of Congress of March 3, 1851, c. 43. On the other side, it is contended that the general maritime law on this subject (if there be any) is not in force in this country, and that the benefit of the act of Congress cannot be claimed by foreign vessels. It is further contended by the libellants that the steamship company, even if it might have had the benefit of the rule, failed to take the proper steps for obtaining it,-first, in not filing a petition according to the rules of this court; and, secondly, in not surrendering the property recovered from the wreck, or its proceeds.

In the case of Norwich Company v. Wright (13 Wall. 104) we had occasion to state that the general maritime law of Europe only charges innocent owners to the extent of their interest in the ship for the acts of the master and crew, and that if the ship is lost their liability is at an end. This rule is laid down in several places in the ancient code called the Consolato del Mare, and in many other authorities which are quoted and commented upon by Judge Ware in the case of The Rebecca (Ware, 187); and it is specifically formulated in various national ordinances and codes, amongst others, in the Marine Ordinance of Louis XIV., adopted in 1681. Emerigon, in his treatise of Contracts 'a la Grosse,' says: 'The owners of the ship are bound in solidum by everything which the captain does in the course of the voyage for the promotion of the voyage. . . . But this action in solidum does not exist against the owners farther than according to the interest which they have in the body of the ship; hence, if the ship perish, or if they abandon their interest, they are no longer liable for anything. It is thus that the maritime laws of the Middle Age have directed; such is the law which is observed in the North; and such is the regulation of our own ordinance:' and he refers to the Consolato and other authorities. The text of the French ordinance, which is regarded as merely formulating the old customary law, is as follows: 'The owners of ships are responsible for the acts of the master, but they become discharged therefrom by abandoning the ship and freight.'

But whilst this is the rule of the general maritime law of Europe, it was not received as law in England nor in this country until made so by statute. The English statutes, indeed, have not yet adopted, to its full extent, the maritime law on this subject. They make the owners responsible to the value of ship and freight at the time of the injury (that is, immediately before the injury), although the ship be destroyed, or injured by the same act, or afterwards in the same voyage; whilst our law adopts the maritime rule of graduating the liability by the value of the ship after the injury, as she comes back into port, and the freight actually earned; and enables the owners to avoid all responsibility by giving up ship and freight, if still in existence, in whatever condition the ship may be; and, without such surrender, subjects them only to a responsibility equivalent to the value of the ship and freight as rescued from the disaster.

But, whilst the rule adopted by Congress is the same as the rule of the general maritime law, its efficacy as a rule depends upon the statute, and not upon any inherent force of the maritime law. As explained in The Lottawana (21 Wall. 558), the maritime law is only so far operative as law in any country as it is adopted by the laws and usages of that country; and this particular rule of the maritime law had never been adopted in this country until it was enacted by statute. Therefore, whilst it is now a part of our maritime law, it is, nevertheless, statute law, and must be interpreted and administered as such. Then, does it govern the present case?

In administering justice between parties it is essential to know by what law, or code, or system of laws, their mutual rights are to be determined. When they arise in a particular country or State, they are generally to be determined by the laws of that State. Those laws pervade all transactions which take place where they prevail, and give them their color and legal effect. Hence, if a collision should occur in British waters, at least between British ships, and the injured party should seek relief in our courts, we would administer justice according to the British law, so far as the rights and liabilities of the parties were concerned, provided it were shown what that law-was. If not shown, we would apply our own law to the case. In the French or Dutch tribunals they would do the same. But, if a collision occurs on the high seas, where the law of no particular State has exclusive force, but all are equal, any forum called upon to settle the rights of the parties would prima facie determine them by its own law as presumptively expressing the rules of justice; but if the contesting vessels belonged to the same foreign nation, the court would assume that they were subject to the law of their nation carried under their common flag, and would determine the controversy accordingly. If they belonged to different nations, having different laws, since it would be unjust to apply the laws of either to the exclusion of the other, the law of the forum, that is, the maritime law as received and practised therein, would properly furnish the rule of decision. In all other cases, each nation will also adminster justice according to its own laws. And it will do this without respect of persons, to the stranger as well as to the citizen. If it be the legislative will that any particular privilege should be enjoyed by its own citizens alone, express provision will be made to that effect. Some laws, it is true, are necessarily special in their application to domestic ships, such as those relating to the forms of ownership, charter-party, and nationality; others follow the vessel wherever she goes, as the law of the flag, such as those which regulate the mutual relations of master and crew, and the power of the master to bind the ship or her owners. But the great mass of the laws are, or are intended to be, expressive of the rules of justice and right applicable alike to all.

The act of Congress creating a limited responsibility of ship-owners in certain cases, first passed March 3, 1851, and reproduced in sects. 4282-4289 of the Revised Statutes, is general in its terms, extending to all owners of vessels without distinction or discrimination. It declares that 'the liability of the owner of any vessel for any embezzlement, loss, or destruction, by any person, of any property, goods, or merchandise, shipped or put on board of such vessel, or for any loss, damage, or injury by collision, or for any act, matter, or thing, loss, damage, or forfeiture, done, occasioned, or incurred, without the privity or knowledge of such owner or owners, shall in no case exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner in such vessel, and her freight then pending.' This statute declares the rule which the law-making power of this country regards as most just to be applied in maritime cases. The great carrying trade by land is governed by substantially the same principle; being in the hands of corporate associations, whose members are not personally liable for acts of the employees, but risk only the amount of their capital stock in the corporation. The doctrine of respondeat superior, it is true, applies to the corporations themselves; but that does not interfere with the personal immunity of the shareholders. Whenever the public interest requires the employment of a great aggregation of capital, exposed to immense risk, some limitation of responsibility is necessary in order that men may be induced to contribute to the enterprise. As Grotius says, in reference to this very matter of ship-owners, 'Men would be deterred from owning and operating ships, if they were subject to the fear of an indefinite liability for the acts of the master.' Jure B. & P., lib. 2, c. 11, s. 13.

But it is enough to say, that the rule of limited responsibility is now our maritime rule. It is the rule by which, through the act of Congress, we have announced that we propose to administer justice in maritime cases. We see no reason, in the absence of any different law governing the case, why it should not be applied to foreign ships as well as to our own, whenever the parties choose to resort to our courts for redress. Of course the rule must be applied, if applied at all, as well when it operates against foreign ships as when it operates in their favor.

English cases have been cited to show that the courts of that country hold that their statutes prior to 1862, which in generality of terms were similar to our own, did not apply to foreign ships. See The Nostra Signora de los Dolores, 1 Dod. 290; The Carl Johan, cited in The Dundee, 1 Hagg. Adm. 109, 113; The Girolamo, 3 id. 169, 186; The Zollverein, 1 Swa. 96; Cope v. Doherty, 4 Kay & J. 367; s. c. 2 De G. & J. 614; The General Iron Screw Collier Co. v. Schurmanns, 1 John. & H. 180; The Wild Ranger, 1 Lush. 553. We have examined these cases. So far as they stand on general grounds of argument, the most important consideration seems to be this, that the British legislature cannot be supposed to have intended to prescribe regulations to bind the subjects of foreign States, or to make for them a law of the high sea; and that if it had so intended, it could not have done it. This is very true. No nation has any such right. Each nation, however, may declare what it will accept and, by its courts, enforce as the law of the sea, when parties choose to resort to its forum for redress. And no persons subject to its jurisdiction, or seeking justice in its courts, can complain of the determination of their rights by that law, unless they can propound some other law by which they ought to be judged; and this they cannot do except where both parties belong to the same foreign nation; in which case, it is true, they may well claim to have their controversy settled by their own law. Perhaps a like claim might be made where the parties belong to different nations having the same system of law. But where they belong to the country in whose forum the litigation is instituted, or to different countries having different systems of law, the court will administer the maritime law as accepted and used by its own sovereignty.

The English courts say that, as foreigners are not subject to their law, nor entitled to its benefits, they will resort to the general law of general liability when foreigners are litigants before them. Where do they find such general law? In the law of nature? or the civil or common law? Is not the maritime law, as their own legislature or national authority has adopted it, as imperative as either of these? Does it not, in the British judicial conscience, stand for the law, of nature, or general justice? As for the civil and common laws, they are only municipal laws where they have the force of laws at all. The better grounds for the English decisions seem to be the peculiar terms of the acts of Parliament on the subject, and the supposed policy of those acts, as being intended for the encouragement of the British marine. From these considerations, as grounds of construction, the conclusion may have been properly deduced that the law was intended to be confined to British ships. The question, it is true, has ceased to be of practical importance in England, since the act of 1862 (25 & 26 Vict., c. 63), by which the owners of any ship, British or foreign, are not to be answerable, without their actual fault or privity, for any loss or damage to person or property, to an amount exceeding 15 per ton of the ship's registered tonnage, or its equivalent in case of foreign ships. But the former English decisions are thought to have a bearing on our law, because the acts of Parliament to which they related, in their principal clauses, were conceived in the same broad and general terms as our act of Congress. Some of the clauses of the British acts, however, relating to registered tonnage and other particulars, admitted only a special application to British ships; and perhaps these clauses did require a restricted construction of the whole acts to such ships.

But there is no demand for such a narrow construction of our statute, at least of that part of it which prescribes the general rule of limited responsibility of ship-owners. And public policy, in our view, requires that the rules of the maritime law as accepted by the United States should apply to all alike, as far as it can properly be done. If there are any specific provisions of our law which cannot be applied to foreigners, or foreign ships, they are not such as interfere with the operation of the general rule of limited responsibility. That rule, and the mode of enforcing it, are equally applicable to all. They are not restricted by the terms of the statute to any nationality or domicile. We think they should not be restricted by construction. Our opinion, therefore, is that in this case the National Steamship Company was entitled to the benefit of the law of limited responsibility.

But it is objected that the appellants did not properly, and in due time, claim the benefit of the law. Under this head it is strenuously contended that the appellants did not comply with the rules of this court adopted in December Term, 1871. Without adverting to the fact that these rules were not in existence until long after this litigation had been pending, we may say, once for all, that they were not intended to restrict parties claiming the benefit of the law, but to aid them. Some form of proceeding was necessary to enable ship-owners to bring into concourse the various parties claiming damages against them for injuries sustained by mishaps to the ship or cargo, where they were entitled, or conceived themselves entitled, to the law of limited responsibility, and where they were subjected or liable to actions for damages at the suit of the parties thus injured. The rules referred to were adopted for the purpose of formulating a proceeding that would give full protection to the ship-owners in such a case. They were not intended to prevent them from availing themselves of any other remedy or process which the law itself might entitle them to adopt. They were not intended to prevent a defence by way of answer to a libel, or plea to an action, if the ship-owners should deem SUCH A MODE Of pleading adequate to their protection. it is obvious tHat in a case like the present, where all the parties injured are represented as libellants or intervenors in the cause, an answer setting up the defence of limited responsibility is fully adequate to give the ship-owners all the protection which they need.

But it is objected that they did not follow the statute by giving up and conveying to a trustee the strippings of the wreck and the pending freight. it is sufficient to say that the law does not require this. It contains two distinct and independent provisions on the subject. One is, that the ship-owners shall be liable only to the value of the ship and freight; the other is, that they may be discharged altogether by surrendering the ship and freight. If they failed to avail themselves of the latter, they are still entitled to the benefit of the former kind of relief. The primary enactment, in sect. 4283, Rev. Stat., is, that the liability of the owner for any loss or damage, without his privity or knowledge, shall in no case exceed the amount or value of his interest in the vessel and her freight then pending. Two modes for carrying out this law are then prescribed, one in sect. 4284, and the other in sect. 4285. By sect. 4284, a pro rata recovery against the ship-owner is given to the various parties injured 'in proportion to their respective losses;' and it is added: 'for that purpose the freighters and owners of the property, and the owner of the vessel, or any of them, may take the appropriate proceedings in any court, for the purpose of apportioning the sum for which the owner of the vessel may be liable, among the parties entitled thereto.'

The other mode of attaining the benefit of the law is prescribed by sect. 4285, which declares that 'it shall be deemed a sufficient compliance on the part of such owner, with the requirements of this title, if he shall transfer his interest in such vessel and freight, for the benefit of such claimants, to a trustee, to be appointed by any court of competent jurisdiction, &c., from and after which transfer all claims and proceedings against the owner shall cease.' This last proceeding the respondents did not see fit to adopt; but that does not deprive them of the benefit of the preceding section.

As to the form of proceeding necessary to give the respondents the benefit of sect. 4254, which declares that either party 'may take the appropriate proceedings in any court, for the purpose of apportioning the sum for which the owner of the vessel may be liable,' what more 'appropriate proceeding' could be taken for this purpose, where all the parties are before a court of admiralty, and where the ship-owners plead their exemption under the statute, than to give a decree against them for the amount of their liability, and to distribute the sum amongst the parties entitled to it?

It seems to us that no additional rules are necessary to attain the object of the law in the case. It is plain enough to execute itself. If there are parties, not represented in the suit, who have claims for damages, it is the respondents' fault for not bringing them in, as they might have done after the rules of 1871 were adopted, by pursuing the remedy pointed out in those rules. But as to the actual libellants and intervenors in the suit, there is no reason in the world why the respondents should not be decreed to pay the value of the ship's strippings and remanants into court, nor why such amount should not be distributed pro rata amongst the claimants.

We think that this should have been done. If any further inquiries are necessary to be made, in order to ascertain the proper amount to be paid by the respondents, as depending upon the value of the articles saved, including freight or passage money realized, the court below can institute them in a proper way.

The question raised as to the rule of damages which should be adopted, in estimating the actual loss of the owners of the guano, was properly decided by the Circuit Court. The rule is, the prime cost or market value of the cargo at the place of shipment, with all charges of lading and transportation, including insurance and interest, but without any allowance for anticipated profits. When, as in this case, the goods have no ascertainable market value at the place of shipment, the guano being a natural deposit owned by the Peruvian government, indirect means must be resorted to for the purpose of ascertaining the real value at that place. The Circuit Court had the evidence of an experienced merchant on this subject, who based his estimate upon the price for which the goods were usually sold in New York, with a fair deduction for profits and expenses of every kind. Under the circumstances of the case we do not see that any juster method could have been adopted. The rate of interest allowed, six per cent per annum, was the proper rate in such a case. See The Vaughan and Telegraph, 14 Wall. 258; Murray v. Charming Betsey, 2 Cranch, 64; The Anna Maria, 2 Wheat. 327; The Amiable Nancy, 3 id. 546; Smith v. Condry, 1 How. 28; Williamson v. Barrett, 13 id. 101.

In conclusion, our decision is, that as no error has been shown in any part of the decree below except on the question of limited responsibility, the same is in all respects affirmed with that exception; and for the error in that respect the decree of the Circuit Court must be reversed so far as it condemns the respondents to pay the whole amount of damage sustained by the libellants and intervenors; and the cause must be remanded with instructions to modify the decree and take such further proceedings as may be necessary to carry out the principles laid down in this opinion.

As to the costs of the litigation up to the time the appeal was taken to this court, the decree of the Circuit Court will not be disturbed, inasmuch as the respondents did not place themselves alone on the defence of limited responsibility, but contested the question of fault and any liability whatever, which was found against them.

As to the costs of this appeal, we think that no costs should be decreed to either party against the other. The question before the Circuit Court was a new one, upon which there was wide room for difference of opinion; and neither court nor parties had any precedents to guide or direct them as to the mode of proceeding. Therefore each party will be decreed to pay their own costs on this appeal.

MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS and MR. JUSTICE GRAY did not sit in this case, nor take any part in deciding it.


text: Talk:The Scotland (United States Supreme Court)/Opinion of the Court

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
United States v. Granite Company

APPEAL from the Court of Claims.

The Dix Island Granite Company, a corporation created under the laws of New York, contracted with the United States to deliver at the site of the post-office in the city of New York all such granite as might be required for the construction of the building, 'wrought and dressed in such manner and style of workmanship' as might be directed by the United States. The latter stipulated to pay for the stone delivered 'the sum of sixty-five cents per cubic foot for all stones when the quarried dimensions do not exceed twenty cubic feet in each stone, and one cent additional for every cubic foot of those having such dimensions exceeding twenty feet.'

Under the contract the company delivered, at the proper time and place, 456,544 cubic feet of granite, of which quantity 353,728 cubic feet were in stones the quarried dimensions of which severally exceeded twenty cubic feet. In the settlement of the account the parties disagreed as to the stipulated price per cubic foot of stones the general dimensions of which exceeded twenty feet. The Treasury Department construed the clause as allowing for each cubic foot of the stone sixty-five cents, and one cent additional for every cubic foot exceeding twenty,-thus, if the stone contained twenty-one cubic feet, the price for each cubic foot of the entire stone was to be sixty-six cents; if it contained twenty-two cubic feet, the price for each was to be sixty-seven cents; and so on, increasing the price one cent for each additional cubic foot. On the other hand, the company construed the clause as allowing for each cubic foot of the stone sixty-five cents, and one cent additional for every cubic foot of the entire stone,-thus, if the stone contained twenty-one cubic feet, the price was to be sixty-five cents plus twenty-one cents, that is, eighty-six cents a cubic foot of the entire stone; if it contained twenty-two cubic feet, the price was to be eighty-seven cents; and so on, adding to the sixty-five cents one cent for each cubic foot of the entire stone. The difference in the amounts resulting from the two interpretations as to the price of the granite delivered was $70,745.74.

The amount allowed by the department was paid on account, the question of the construction of the clause being reserved for judicial decision. The company thereupon brought the present action in the Court of Claims for the difference. Other demands were also included in the action; but as they were disallowed, and the company has not appealed, no reference need be made to them. For the difference in the price of the stone, mentioned above, the company recovered judgment, and the case is brought here for review.

The Solicitor-General for the United States.

Mr. Enoch Totten for the appellee.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

title: United States v. Granite Company


text: Talk:United States v. Granite Company

title: Talk:United States v. Granite Company


text:
United States v. Granite Company/Opinion of the Court

The clause of the contract in question, upon the interpretation of which the determination of this case must depend, divides the stones to be delivered into two classes,-those whose dimensions do not exceed twenty cubic feet, and those whose dimensions do exceed that number of cubic feet. For those of the first class the price is fixed as sixty-five cents a cubic foot. For those of the second class the price per cubic foot is fluctuating, increasing with the size of the stone; but the mode of ascertaining this price is prescribed. It is to add to the sixty-five cents as many cents as there are cubic feet in the stone; and this sum will constitute the price per cubic foot. The last clause must, therefore, be read as if the words 'per cubic foot' were inserted in it; thus, 'one cent additional [per cubic foot] for every cubic foot' of the larger stones, that is, for the whole number of such feet in the stone. It will serve to remove doubt as to the meaning of the clause if we look at it with the insertion of these words after eliminating the provision as to the smaller stones. It will then read thus: 'The party of the first part hereby covenants and agrees to pay. . . the sum of sixty-five cents per cubic foot for all stones. . . and one cent additional [per cubic foot] for every cubic foot' of the stones; that is, sixty-five cents for each cubic foot plus one cent for every cubic foot in the stone. This is the interpretation for which the claimant contends; and it appears to us to be the only one permissible from the language used. The interpretation adopted by the Treasury Department requires the interpolation of terms excepting from the computation the first twenty feet; and this exception is inconsistent with the provision that for 'every cubic foot' of the larger stones an additional price is to be paid.

Nor is there anything unreasonable in the increased price for the larger stones required by this interpretation. Every contract must be considered with reference to the subject in respect to which it is made, and its language construed accordingly. It was stated by counsel on the argument, and the fact is a matter of common knowledge, that with builders, materialmen, and architects the value, and consequently the price, of dressed building stone, per cubic foot, is determined by the size of the stone, and that this value cumulates with the size; thus, the value of a cubic foot of granite in a small block-weighing a single ton, for example-is much less than the value of a cubic foot in a larger block weighing several tons. The difficulty of preparing and moving blocks weighing several tons is very much greater than that of preparing and moving an equal quantity of stone is small blocks; and the expense of time and labor must, of course, be proportionately greater.

The contract compelled the company to furnish 'all such stone' as might be required in the construction of the post-office building. It left the size of the blocks to the direction of the United States. They might have called for blocks equal in size to some of those furnished for the building of the Treasury Department, which are said to contain five hundred and sixty-three cubic feet, and to weigh forty-seven tons. The dressing and transportation of a stone of such a size would have been very much greater than the dressing and transportation of forty-seven blocks each of a single ton. We do not, therefore, appreciate the force of the objection urged by the government to the construction for which the claimant insists, that instead of allowing a rate gradually increasing beyond the twenty feet dimension, it requires, to quote the language of counsel, 'a sudden leap at one point' when the dimensions of the stone pass the twenty cubic feet limit. Had the government called for blocks, all of one hundred or more cubic feet, as it might have done, the change would have been as much against the interest of the claimant as the supposed benefit to him by the change in price at the point mentioned. The reason suggested-and we cannot say that it is not a good one-for having a fixed price for blocks, not exceeding twenty cubic feet, is, that blocks of that size and weight could be handled by a known power, for which provision was made; but for moving stones of a larger size special arrangements would be required, depending upon their dimensions and weight. It may well be that at the point where stones can be readily handled, and beyond which special arrangements are required to move them, a great change should be made in the price. The company may have been indifferent as to their weight and size under a specified figure, and yet been unwilling to furnish any of a larger size without a greatly increased price.

There are many articles in commerce whose value is greatly increased by a small augmentation in size, and they are consequently sold at a cumulative price, as their dimensions are enlarged. Plate-glass is one of them; diamonds are another. Such increased value arises either from the greater rarity of the article of the larger size, or the greater difficulty in its production or transportation. The cumulative character of the price in the present case is not exceptional, for the reasons mentioned, that the difficulty and expense of moving the blocks increase with their size. It is stated in the able opinion of one of the justices of the Court of Claims, that the price of similar stones bought by the government for the building of the Treasury Department was seventy cents per foot for those of ten feet, eighty cents for those of twenty feet, ninety cents for those of thirty feet, and so on; in other words, that there was a cumulative price for every additional cubic foot of the stone.

Applying the contract to the subject to which it relates, we think that the interpretation placed by the company upon the clause as to the price was correct.

Judgment affirmed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE, MR. JUSTICE MILLER, and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissented.


text: Talk:United States v. Granite Company/Opinion of the Court


text:
Young v. Steamship Company

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Henry Flanders for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Morton P. Henry for the defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Young v. Steamship Company


text: Talk:Young v. Steamship Company

title: Talk:Young v. Steamship Company


text:
Young v. Steamship Company/Opinion of the Court

The defendant in the court below, John H. Young, who died since this case has been pending here, was appointed shipping commissioner of the United States at the port of Philadelphia, in July, 1872; and was continuously in office from that time until the present action was commenced, in March, 1876. The American Steamship Company, plaintiff in the court below, is a corporation created under the laws of Pennsylvania, and, during the period the deceased held his office, was the owner of four steamships sailing under the American flag between the ports of Philadelphia and Liverpool. The men composing the crews of the steamships were shipped before the commissioner for a voyage from Philadelphia to Liverpool and back; and for every man shipped on each voyage the commissioner received from the company the sum of two dollars, the payment of which was demanded by him by virtue of his office.

The total number of men shipped at Philadelphia, on board these steamships, between the dates mentioned, was 6,136; of which number 2,439 reshipped and sailed on the next succeeding voyage of the same steamship on which they had returned to that port. For these the commissioner demanded and received from the company $4,878, payments being made from time to time, as the bills were presented by him, immediately after the reshipment of the men.

The present action was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Philadelphia to recover this sum, and was submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts. That court held that the payments were voluntary, and that the money, therefore, could not be recovered back. The case being carried to the Supreme Court of the State, the decision of the Court of Common Pleas was reversed, and judgment ordered for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. To review this judgment the case is brought here.

Two questions were presented for consideration to the Supreme Court of the State: 1st, Whether the shipping compreme 1st, Whether the shipping commissioner was entitled to seaman who, on the return of a vessel of the company to Philadelphia, reshipped and sailed on the same vessel in succeeding voyages; and, 2d, whether, if the fees collected by him were illegally exacted, they could be recovered back, it not appearing that any objection was made at the time to their payment. That court decided both question in favor of the company; and the same questions are now presented to us.

The Revised Statutes require the several Circuit Courts of the United States, within whose jurisdiction there is a port of entry and of ocean navigation, to appoint a shipping commissioner for it; and empower them to regulate the mode of conducting business in his office; and to exercise full control over it. Sect. 4501. They also require him to take an oath of office, and to give a bond, with sureties, in such sum as the cirecit judge may prescribe, not less than $5,000, for the faithful discharge of his duties. Sect. 4502. They provide, with certain exceptions, not necessary to be stated in this case, that the master of every vessel bound from a port in the United States to any foreign port shall, before he proceeds on such voyage, make an agreement, in writing or in print, with every seaman whom he carries to sea as one of the crew, which must contain various particulars relating to the nature and probable duration of the voyage contemplated, the port or country where it is to terminate, the number and description of the crew, the time when the seaman is to be on board to begin work, the capacity in which he is to serve, the wages he is to receive, the provision with which he is to be furnished, and regulations as to his conduct, and to the fines and punishments to which he may be subjected, and stipulations as to advance and allotment of wages. Sect.4511. The agreement, except as otherwise specially provided, is to be signed in duplicate in the presence of the commissioner, acknowledged before him, and certified under his hand and official seal, one copy of which is to be retained by him and the other to be delivered to the master of the vessel. Sect. 4512. For each seaman thus shipped the commissioner is allowed a fee of two dollars.

But the statutes also declare that these provisions as to the duty of the master and the contract with the seamen, shall not apply to masters of vessels in cases where the seamen are, by custom or agreement, entitled to participate in the profits or results of a cruise or voyage, nor to masters of coastwise or lake-going vessels that touch at foreign ports; but that 'seamen may, by agreement, serve on board such vessels a definite time, or, on the return of any vessel to a port in the United States, may reship and sail in the same vessel on another voyage without the payment of additional fees to the shipping commissioner by either the seaman or the master.' Sect. 4513.

The solution of the first question presented depends upon the construction given to this last clause. The contention of the commissioner is that the exemption from payment of fees on the reshipment is limited to the reshipment for one other voyage and to that immediately following the one at which the fees were paid. On the other hand, the contention of the steamship company is that the exemption applies to a reshipment for all voyages succeeding the first one in regular order. We are of opinion that this latter construction is the correct-one.

The legislation of Congress was designed for the protection of seamen in the merchant service; they had previously been the subject of constant imposition and deception. As a class, particularly those serving as common sailors, they are proverbially improvident, and frequently the prey of unscrupulous landsmen. Soon stripped when in port of their hard earnings, they are generally willing to accept employment on almost any terms. Their necessitous condition often compelled them to submit to harsh contracts which placed them completely in the power of masters of vessels. To remedy these evils, the office of shipping commissioner was created; and he is charged with the performance of important duties connected with the shipment and discharge of seamen. Every engagement for their service must be made and signed before him. But when satisfied with the vessel upon which they have served and with the treatment received, they are disposed to continue in the employment of the same owners, they can have no occasion for his services. All that is then required of him is to see that the renewed contract is signed and acknowledged in his presence. The exemption of the reshipment from fees was undoubtedly made, as suggested by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, to encourage a more steady and continuous service, and to make it for the interest of masters to so treat their crews as to induce them to remain with the vessels. This object requires the extension of the exemption to a reshipment on all voyages succeeding in regular order the one for which fees were paid, equally as to the one next succeeding. Every reshipment must, by its terms, be only for another voyage, not for several voyages. So, upon a strict construction, as well as upon a view of the intention of the exemption, the same result must follow. No reason can be assigned why the exemption should extend to the first reshipment on the same vessel, that will not apply to all subsequent reshipments following continuously.

It is of no weight against this construction of the statutes that it may deprive the commissioner of fees to an extent materially affecting his compensation. Statutes are not to be wrested from their true meaning because a diminution of the fees of an office may result from it.

It follows that we agree with the Supreme Court of the State on the first question presented. Upon the second question, whether the payments were voluntary, and, therefore, the money could not be recovered back, we express no opinion; for in any view in which it may be considered, it is not one of Federal law. The ruling of the State court on this point is final, so far as we are concerned, in this action.

Judgment affirmed.


text: Talk:Young v. Steamship Company/Opinion of the Court


text:
Head v. Hargrave

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Arizona.

This was an action brought in a district court of Arizona to recover the sum of $2,000 alleged to be owing by the defendants to the plaintiffs for professional services as attorneys and counsellors-at-law in that Territory in 1877 and 1878. The complaint alleges that the services were performed in several suits and proceedings, upon a retainer by the defendants; and that they were reasonably worth that sum. The answer is a general denial.

On the trial, one of the plaintiffs testified to the rendition of the services by them in several suits, stating generally the nature of each suit, the service performed, and its value. Five attorneys-at-law also testified to the value of the services; three of whom were called by the plaintiffs and two by the defendants. They differed widely in their opinions, the highest estimate placing the value of the services at $5,440, the lowest at $1,000.

The court instructed the jury, that, in determining the value of the plaintiffs' services, they might consider their nature, the length of time they necessarily occupied, and the benefit derived from them by the defendants; that the plaintiffs were entitled to reasonable compensation for the services rendered; and that the reasonableness of the compensation was a fact to be determined from the evidence as any other controverted fact in the case; and then proceeded as follows:--

'The services rendered were skilled and professional, and for the purpose of proving to you the value of that class of services rendered, professional gentlemen, attorneys-at-law, claiming to be familiar with the value of such services, have testified before you. If you accredit these witnesses with truthfulness, their testimony should have weight with you; and the fact as to what is a reasonable compensation should be determined from the evidence offered, and not from your own knowledge or ideas of the value of that class of services. In other words, you must determine the value of the services rendered from the evidence which has been offered before you, and not from your own knowledge or ideas of the value of such services.'

The defendants thereupon asked the court to instruct the jury as follows:--

'In determining the value of the plaintiffs' services the jury are not bound by the testimony of the expert witnesses; that testimony may be considered by the jury; but if, in their judgment, the value fixed by those witnesses is not reasonable, they may disregard it, and find the amount which, in their judgment, would be reasonable.

'In determining the value of the plaintiffs' services the jury are not bound by the opinions of the witnesses, unless the jury shall find from all the evidence taken together, including the nature of the services, the time occupied in the performance of them, and the result of them, and the benefit derived by the defendants from the rendition of said services, that said opinions are correct.'

The court refused to give these instructions, and an exception was taken. The jury thereupon gave a verdict for the plaintiffs for $1,800; upon which judgment was entered. A statement of the proceedings at the trial was then prepared, which, among other things, set forth the alleged errors of law excepted to by the defendants. This statement was used on a motion for a new trial, which was denied; and by stipulation it was embodied in the papers for the appeal to the Supreme Court of the Territory from the judgment, as well as from the order denying the new trial. The order and justment were both affirmed; and, to review the judgment, the case is brought to this court.

Mr. Thomas Fitch and Mr. C. J. Hillyer for the plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Philip Phillips and Mr. W. Hallett Phillips for the defendants in error.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Head v. Hargrave


text: Talk:Head v. Hargrave

title: Talk:Head v. Hargrave


text:
Head v. Hargrave/Opinion of the Court

The defendants in error object to the use of the statement, which sets forth the exceptions taken, as not constituting a part of the record before us. The ground of the objection is, that the statement was prepared for and used on the motion for a new trial, with the disposition of which this court cannot interfere. The objection would be tenable but for the stipulation of the parties that the statement might be used on appeal from the judgment. A statement of the case, according to the law regulating civil proceedings in the Territory, takes the place of a bill of exceptions, when the alleged errors of law are set forth with sufficient matter to show the relevancy of the points taken. It is not the less available on appeal from the judgment when, by stipulation, it is embodied in the record for that purpose, though used on the motion for a new trial. We have had occasion to refer to this subject in Kerr v. Clampitt, which arose in Utah, where a similar system of procedure in civil cases obtains; and it is unnecessary to repeat what is there said. 95 U.S. 188.

The only question presented for our consideration is whether the opinions of the attorneys, as to the value of the professional services rendered, were to control the judgment of the jury so as to preclude them from exercising their 'own knowledge or ideas' upon the value of such services. That the court intended to instruct the jury to that effect is, we think, clear. After informing them that, in determining the value of the services, they might consider their nature, the time they occupied, and the benefit derived from them; also, that the plaintiffs were entitled to reasonable compensation for the services, and that the reasonableness of the compensation was a fact to be determined from the evidence,-it proceeded to call special attention to the testimony of the attorneys, and told the jury that if they accredited these witnesses with truthfulness their testimony should have weight, and the fact as to what is reasonable compensation should be 'determined from the evidence offered,' and not from their own knowledge or ideas of the value of that class of services, and emphasized the instruction by repetition, as follows: 'You must determine the value of the services rendered from the evidence that has been offered before you, and not from your own knowledge or ideas as to the value of such services.' This language qualifies the meaning of the previous part of the instruction. It is apparent from the context that by the words 'evidence offered' and 'evidence that has been offered before you' reference was made to the expert testimony, and to that alone. Taken together, the charge amounts to this: that while the jury might consider the nature of the services and the time expended in their performance, their value-that is, what was reasonable compensation for them-was to be determined exclusively from the testimony of the professional witnesses. They were to be at liberty to compare and balance the conflicting estimates of the attorneys on that point, but not to exercise any judgment thereon by application of their own knowledge and experience to the proof made as to the character and extent of the services; that the opinions of the attorneys as to what was reasonable compensation was alone to be considered. That the defendants so understood the charge is evident from the qualifications of it which they desired to obtain; and the jury may, in like manner, have so understood it. And as we so construe it, we think the court erred, and that it should have been qualified by the instructions requested. Those instructions correctly presented the law of the case. It is true that no exception was taken to the charge; but its modification was immediately sought by the instructions requested, and to the refusal to give them an exception was taken. Objection to the charge was thus expressed as affirmatively and pointedly as if it had been directed in terms to the language used by the court.

It was the province of the jury to weigh the testimony of the attorneys as to the value of the services, by reference to their nature, the time occupied in their performance, and other attending circumstances, and by applying to it their own experience and knowledge of the character of such services. To direct them to find the value of the services from the testimony of the experts alone, was to say to them that the issue should be determined by the opinions of the attorneys, and not by the exercise of their own judgment of the facts on which those opinions were given. The evidence of experts as to the value of professional services does not differ, in principle, from such evidence as to the value of labor in other departments of business, or as to the value of property. So far from laying aside their own general knowledge and ideas, the jury should have applied that knowledge and those ideas to the matters of fact in evidence in determining the weight to be given to the opinions expressed; and it was only in that way that they could arrive at a just conclusion. While they cannot act in any case upon particular facts material to its disposition resting in their private knowledge, but should be governed by the evidence adduced, they may, and to act intelligently they must, judge of the weight and force of that evidence by their own general knowledge of the subject of inquiry. If, for example, the question were as to the damages sustained by a plaintiff from a fracture of his leg by the carelessness of a defendant, the jury would ill perform their duty and probably come to a wrong conclusion, if, controlled by the testimony of the surgeons, not merely as to the injury inflicted, but as to the damages sustained, they should ignore their own knowledge and experience of the value of a sound limb. Other persons besides professional men have knowledge of the value of professional services; and, while great weight should always be given to the opinions of those familiar with the subject, they are not to be blindly received, but are to be intelligently examined by the jury in the light of their own general knowledge; they should control only as they are found to be reasonable.

As justly remarked by counsel, the present case is an excellent illustration of the error of confining the jury to a consideration merely of the opinions of the experts. Of the five attorneys who were witnesses, no two agreed; and their estimates varied between the extremes of $1,000 and $5,440. Directing the jurors to determine the value of the professional services solely upon these varying opinions was to place them in a state of perplexing uncertainty. They should not have been instructed to accept the conclusions of the professional witnesses, in place of their own, however much that testimony may have been entitled to consideration. The judgment of witnesses, as a matter of law, is in no case to be substituted for that of the jurors. The instructions tended to mislead as to the weight to be given to the opinions of the attorneys, especially after qualifications of them designed to correct any misconception on this head were refused.

In Anthony v. Stinson, a question similar to the one here presented came before the Supreme Court of Kansas, and a like decision was reached. The instruction given at the trial that the testimony of certain lawyers as to the value of professional services should be the guide of the jury, and that they should be governed by it in finding the value of the services rendered, was held to be erroneous; the court observing that the jury were not to be instructed as to what part of the testimony before them should control their verdict; that, in order to control it, the testimony of experts should be of such a character as to outweigh by its intrinsic force and probability all conflicting testimony; and that they could not be required to accept, as a matter of law, the conclusions of the witnesses instead of their own. 4 Kan. 211.

In Patterson v. Boston, which arose in Massachusetts, the question was as to the damages to be awarded to the plaintiff for his property, taken to widen a street in Boston. The trial court instructed the jury that, in estimating the amount of the damages, if any of them knew, of his own knowledge, any material fact which bore upon the issue, he ought to disclose it and be sworn, and communicate it to his fellows in open court in the presence of the parties; but that, in making up their verdict, they might rightfully be influenced by their general knowledge on such subjects, as well as by the testimony and opinions of witnesses. The case being taken to the Supreme Court of the State, it was held that these directions were not open to exception. Said Chief Justice Shaw, speaking for the court: 'Juries would be very little fit for the high and responsible office to which they are called, especially to make an appraisement, which depends on knowledge and experience, if they might not avail themselves of those powers of their minds when they are most necessary to the performance of their duties.' 20 Pick. (Mass.) 159, 166.

In Murdock v. Sumner, the same court, speaking through the same distinguished judge, said that 'the jury very properly exercise their own judgment and apply their own knowledge and experience in regard to the general subject of inquiry.' In that case a witness had testified as to the quality, condition, and cost of certain goods, and given his opinion as to their worth, and the court said that 'the jury were not bound by the opinion of the witness; they might have taken the facts testified by him as to the cost, quality, and condition of the goods, and come to a different opinion as to their value.' 22 id. 156.

In like manner, in this case, the jurors might have taken the facts testified to by the attorneys as to the character, extent, and value of the professional services rendered, and then come to a different conclusion. The instructions given, whilst stating that the nature of the services rendered, the time occupied in their performance, and the benefit derived from them might be considered by the jury, directed them that they should be governed by the opinions of the experts as to the value of the services, and, in effect, forbade them to exercise their own knowledge and ideas on that kind of sercices. This error would have been avoided if the instructions requested by the defendants had been given.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered.

title: Head v. Hargrave/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Head v. Hargrave/Opinion of the Court


text:
Smith v. Field

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Submitted by The Solicitor-General for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Edward S. Isham, Mr. E. B. Smith, and Mr. John H. Thompson for the defendants in error.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Smith v. Field


text: Talk:Smith v. Field

title: Talk:Smith v. Field


text:
Smith v. Field/Opinion of the Court

In 1878 the defendant in the court below was collector of customs for the port of Chicago, and this action is brought to recover from him the amount of certain duties alleged to have been illegally imposed in that year upon goods of the plaintiffs. It appears that the plaintiffs imported into the United States, from France, certain articles invoiced as 'white linen torchon laces and insertings;' that they were brought by steamship to New York, thence transported to Chicago under internal transportation bonds, and there entered; that the defendant, as collector, decided that the goods were subject to a duty of forty per cent ad valorem, under schedule C of sect. 2504 of the Revised Statutes, as a manufacture of flax, or of which flax was a component material of chief value 'not otherwise provided for,' and exacted that duty. The plaintiffs claimed that the goods were subject to a duty of only thirty per cent ad valorem, as 'thread lace and insertings,' which is the amount prescribed in the same schedule for articles of that kind. They paid the difference, ten per cent, under protest, and brought this action to recover back the amount.

On the trial, the chief point in controversy was whether the leces in question were embraced in the description of 'thread laces' in the schedule; for, if so, the duties upon them were fixed at thirty per cent ad valorem, and they were not subject to the duty exacted, of forty per cent, as a manufacture of flax, or of which flax was a component part of chief value 'not otherwise provided for.'

The evidence produced by plaintiffs tended to show that the terms 'thread lace and insertings,' as used and understood among commercial men of the country, included all laces made of thread on a cushion, with bobbins moved by hand, in distinction from laces made by machinery or with needles; that they have a special name attached to them, such as point lace, torchon lace, Smyrna lace, and the like, by which their style and kind are indicated; and that torchon laces, though a very old kind, and not imported to any considerable extent until within a few years past, were generally known as thread laces, and were such in fact.

The evidence produced by the defendant tended to show that there was a class of laces known to commerce, and to dealers, as thread laces, made by hand on cushions with bobbins, and more particularly designated as English, French, or German laces, which were supposed to be made of linen thread, but which were in fact composed chiefly of a fine cotton thread, with only one large linen thread running through the pattern to mark the figures; that torchon laces were not known as 'thread laces.' but only by their special designation; and that torchon and Smyrna laces and some Saxony laces were all that were made of linen thread by hand on cushions with bobbins.

The court left it to the jury to determine whether the torchon lace imported by the plaintiffs was 'thread lace,' such as is meant and described in the statute; and instructed them that if it did not come under that general designation, they should find for the defendant; that it made no difference whether the lace was known to commerce at the time the law was enacted; that, if brought into use afterwards, and yet came under the general designation of 'thread lace,' the government must accept the duty imposed by the law upon that article.

The defendant requested a special instruction, that if the jury believed from the evidence that the torchon lace did not come within the class known as thread lace, designated and intended as such by the statute when it was enacted, they should find that it was a thread lace. This instruction the court refused to add to that already given, and an exception was taken. The jury found for the plaintiffs, and the case is brought here for review.

The record does not disclose any error. The instruction of the court was correct. The special instruction asked was substantially a repetition of that given, and, therefore, unnecessary; there was evidence upon which the jury could find its verdict, and no legal reason is shown why it should be disturbed. The judgment is, therefore,

Affirmed.

title: Smith v. Field/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Smith v. Field/Opinion of the Court


text:
Mathews v. Machine Company

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. George L. Roberts and Mr. George Harding for the appellants.

Mr. Causten Browne for the appellees.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Mathews v. Machine Company


text: Talk:Mathews v. Machine Company

title: Talk:Mathews v. Machine Company


text:
Mathews v. Machine Company/Opinion of the Court

This case comes before us on an appeal from a decree dismissing a bill in equity filed by Samuel R. C. Mathews and others, the appellants, against the Boston Machine Company and others, in which they prayed for an injunction and account of profits for an alleged infringement of two certain patents granted to Washburn Race and S. R. C. Mathews, one dated April 30, 1872 (being a reissue of a patent granted Jan. 26, 1858), and the other dated Nov. 16, 1869. The defendants, in answer, denied that Race and Mathews were the first inventors of the thing patented, referring to several prior patents, and naming prior instances of knowledge and use of the alleged invention; and amongst other things setting up a patent issued to one Zebulon E. Coffin, dated July 21, 1868. They also denied that the reissued patent was for the same invention as the original; and denied infringement. The complainants filed a supplemental bill, alleging that since the filing of the original the defendants had procured a reissue of Coffin's patent, which contained substantially the same invention as that described in the complainants' patent of 1869; but that Race and Mathews were the first and original inventors of the thing patented; and therefore they prayed that the Coffin patent might be declared void.

The Race and Mathews patents, on which this suit was brought, relate to casings or jackets around hydrants, and to the valves for letting on the water when wanted for use, and for draining it out of the hydrant when not in use. It is conceded that the objects of the casing are to prevent freezing in and around the hydrant, by surrounding it with a volume of dead air, to keep it free from contact with the surrounding earth, and to enable the hydrant to be taken out of the ground without removing the surrounding earth. If the earth is in contact with the hydrant, it lifts the hydrant out of place by the action of the frost, and has to be dug away when repairs or other operations have to be performed below the surface. Many casings formerly used were fastened in different ways to the hydrant, and they raised it, when they were lifted by the frost, causing breakage or leakage or other damage by the displacement; and the hydrant could not be disconnected from the main and removed, without removing the casing also.

So far as the improvement in the casing is concerned, the principal thing claimed to be effected by the patentees, Race and Mathews, is the placing of the case in position without attaching it to the hydrant, or to the elbow of the main pipe below, so that the hydrant, whilst being protected from frost and the surrounding earth, may be lifted out separately, and so that the lifting of the case by the frost and surrounding earth will not disturb the hydrant. These objects are effected by two different devices; first, by causing the case to rest loosely on a flange projecting from the elbow of the main, or otherwise, and allowing it to slide up the hydrant which it surrounds, and which is enlarged at that point, for holding the valves; secondly, by allowing the upper end of the case to embrace the hydrant (enlarged at that point also), and to slide up and down upon it like a sleeve. Of course, the case must fit the hydrant snugly enough to keep out the influx of cold air above, and of dirt below; but not so tight as to prevent the hydrant from being lifted out, or the case from slipping up and down upon it. This is the thing which the complainants contend that Race and Mathews invented.

As first patented in 1858, the invention did not accomplish the object. The bottom of the case, it is true, surrounded the hydrant like a sleeve, and rested on a flange projecting from the elbow (which allowed the hydrant to be separately removed without removing the case); but the top of the case was enclosed in a flanged projecting from the enlarged part of the hydrant above, like the brim of a hat, but turned down over the top of the case, so that the latter, though unconnected otherwise with the hydrant, yet if it were lifted by the frost, it would press upward against the flange and raise the hydrant also. This difficulty was remedied by the invention of the improvement patented in 1869, by which the top of the case was made to surround and enclose the upper enlargement of the hydrant, and to slide over it like a sleeve, as before stated. The reissued patent of 1872 substantially embraces both features of the improved case, namely, its disconnection with the hydrant both above and below, and places much stress on the dead-air chamber as a protection from frost, and on the protection of the hydrant below from the surrounding earth; although no claim is based on these last features.

The defendants contend that this reissued patent is not for the same invention as that which is described and patented in and by the original patent of 1858; that the latter made no mention of the dead-air chamber formed by the casing, as a protection of the hydrant from the frost; and that it contained no indication that the case should fit closely to the hydrant, so as to prevent the passage of cold air into the chamber from withour. But to these objections it is answered, that the case invented by Race and Mathews in 1858 was a machine or apparatus having, or being susceptible of, various functions, some of which were well known and needed not to be mentioned or described. Amongst these known functions of the hydrant casing were, the formation of a dead-air chamber to prevent freezing, and the protection of the hydrant from contact with the surrounding earth. The patent of Coffin, on which the defendants rely, states that prior to the date of his invention frost jackets, or cases, on hydrants were well known; that they surround the hydrant proper, an air space existing between the two. It was not necessary for the patentees, Race and Mathews, to enumerate all the known functions of these frost jackets in their original patent; and, as no claim was based upon them, it could not be hurtful to enumerate them in the reissued patent.

But the complainants, in their reissued patent, have split up and divided the elements of their invention, and claimed them separately, and not as a combination. Of course, this enlarges the scope of their patent. The separate claims embrace fewer elements in combination than were embraced in the claim of the original patent. No one could infringe the original patent unless he used all the elements of the combination. Any one will infringe the reissue who uses any of those elements which are now separately claimed.

The original patent had but a single claim in reference to the case, being a claim for a combination between the hydrant, the induction pipe provided with a flange to sustain the jacket, and the jacket itself, when arranged as described in the specification to effect the desired end, to wit, the ready removal of the hydrant. This, in the reissued patent, is divided into two claims, namely, first, the jacket surrounding the hydrant and forming a separate and removable part from the elbow, substantially as and for the purpose set forth; secondly, the independent jacket supported on the arm or elbow of the main at or near the junction of the hydrant, substantially as shown and described; that is to say, there is a claim of a jacket separate and removable from the elbow, and of a jacket resting on the elbow. It cannot be denied that each of these separate claims is much broader than the claim in the original patent; and they are put forth in the reissue fourteen years after the original was granted. The latter showed on its face that these broad claims were not made; and if the patentees were really the inventors of an independent jacket standing loosely on the elbow of the main, when apprised that it was not claimed in the patent they ought to have used due diligence in surrendering it and having the mistake corrected. The case clearly comes within the ruling in Miller v. Brass Company, 104 U.S. 350.

There is still another objection the claims in question. There is a wide departure from the original invention in this, that the subject of the latter was a jacket, or casing, whose top was enclosed and covered by a flange projecting from the hydrant, which effectually prevented the removal of the jacket without removing the hydrant also; and which caused the hydrant to be raised when the jacket was lifted by the frost. In the reissued patent nothing is said of this arrangement of the top of the jacket, and the claims ignore it altogether; so that, as already intimated, the patent as it now stands would cover such a jacket as that described and claimed in the complainants' patent of 1869, which slides like a sleeve over the hydrant at top as well as bottom. The reissue is not only for a broader claim made many years after the original was granted, but is for a different invention. Therefore, so far as the jacket is concerned, we think it cannot be sustained.

But the patent of 1869 still remains. That was for an improvement by which it was proposed to liberate the top of the case from the flange which covered and enclosed it, and make it surround the hydrant and slip over it like a sleeve. The claim is for 'the detached case B, so combined and arranged with the hydrant A, as to have an end play, or vertical motion of several inches, to compensate for the heaving by frost, the upper part of same passing outside of main stock of hydrant.' Had this patent been confined to a hydrant jacket closed at the bottom, and resting on a flange of the main elbow, perhaps it might have been sustainable. But it is not so confined. It is only said that the lower end preferably shuts into a flange of the elbow. The specification, it is true, commences with a statement that the invention was a mere improvement upon that described by the patent of 1858, which was for a case closed at the bottom by standing on a flange; but before getting through, there is an evident departure from that, and an indication that the patentees had begun to entertain views of an expanded construction intended to be placed on the original patent, which afterwards found expression in the reissue of 1872. The claim of the patent of 1869, as it stands, covers any and every loose jacket having an end play to compensate for the heaving of the frost, and having the upper end passing around the hydrant. It covers the old New York wooden case, or housing, which was in public use for many years before Race and Mathews gave their attention to the subject. We are of opinion, therefore, that this patent cannot be sustained.

As to the valve apparatus, the object of which is to let the water in the body of the hydrant escape when the main valve is closed, and to prevent any escape of water when the main valve is open, since Race and Mathews were not the original inventors of this process, but only of a particular arrangement of valves to effect it, they can only properly claim the specific arrangement which they invented. And in view of the older valve in the St. Louis hydrants, which that of the defendants most nearly resembles, and of the fact that the valve used by the defendants is not in the specific form of that invented by Race and Mathews, we think that the defendants are correct in their position that they do not infringe the patent of Race and Mathews, as that patent must be construed in order to be sustained.

Decree affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS and MR. JUSTICE GRAY did not sit in this case, nor take any part in deciding it.


text: Talk:Mathews v. Machine Company/Opinion of the Court


text: Author talk:Alexander Macleod Symington

title: Author talk:Alexander Macleod Symington


text:
Taylor v. Ypsilanti

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. George F. Edmunds and Mr. Elijah Meddaugh for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Hiram J. Beakes for the defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Taylor v. Ypsilanti


text: Talk:Taylor v. Ypsilanti

title: Talk:Taylor v. Ypsilanti