text:
The Maria Martin

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the District of Wisconsin.

On the night of the 22d of June, 1866, the steam propeller Cleveland, in rounding Bar Point, at the head of Lake Erie, on her way up the lake to Detroit, made the lights of a tug and tow, descending the Detroit River near its mouth into the lake, at the supposed distance of two miles. They proved to be the lights of the tug McClellan, having in tow the bark Maria Martin, bound down the lake.

At the time when the lights were made by the lookout of the propeller, this last named vessel had just obtained her offing from Bar Point and was put upon her course for Bois Blanc light, north by east. Her course had been west by north around Bar Point until she brought Bois Blanc light to bear northeast by east, when she at once steered for it. The tug, with the bark in tow, was at this time steering shough-southwest. The respective courses were, therefore, one point divergent. The propeller made the red signal-light of the tug and the red signal-light of the bark from a quarter to half a point over her starboard bow. The McClellan made the green light of the propeller one-fourth of a point over her port bow. The night was a bright starlight night, with a light wind from southwest. The propeller was running past the land from six to six and a half miles an hour. The tug and tow were at about the same speed. All three of the vessels had their red and green signal-lights properly displayed, and they were easily distinguishable. At this time another tug, the Muir, with five vessels in tow, was slowly ascending the Detroit River a little in advance of the propeller, and at about the same distance from the eastern or Canada shore. The bark was towed by means of a rope paid out from her starboard bow, four feet from the bowsprit, 360 feet, and made fast to a samson post in the deck of the tug, about midships, and some twenty-five feet from the taffrail, over which it of course played, from starboard to larboard, as the tow might sheer on the one hand or the other. As the vessels approached each other, their respective lights closed in until they were running nearly 'stem on.' At this juncture, and when separated by about half a mile, the tug and bark being pretty well on to the American shore, and the steamer having a fair berth on the Canada side, the tug sounded one sharp whistle, and in thirty seconds repeated the whistle as a signal to the propeller that she wished her to pass on her port side. the propeller responded with one blast of the whistle, and ported her helm and displayed to the tug her red signal-light. The tug ported her own helm when she turned half a point and became steady on her course. The propeller ran past the tug, port side to port side, with, however, only a narrow berth between ships, when at the instant in which her stem had passed the stern of the tug, the bark collided with the propeller on her port side; the port bow of the bark striking the port bow of the steamer, and the steamer sinking in ten minutes after the blow. The point of collision was about a mile and a half below Bois Blanc light; a point at which tugs usually prepare to cast off their tows, and the tows get ready to enter the lake, and in this case apparently when abreast the light, the bark had commenced making sail preparatory to hauling in her line and steering her course down the lake.

In consequence of the catastrophe the owners of the propeller libelled the bark in the District Court for Wisconsin. It was not asserted that the tug had been guilty of any fault; the main matter relied on in support of the libel being that the bark had not followed the tug, but had made a sudden sheer. Whether she had made such a sheer or not was a principal point of fact in the case, and one about which much conflicting evidence was given. Numerous persons who had been on her swore that she followed straight after the tug, but not less numerous ones who had been on the propeller swore that at the instant when her stern had passed the stern of the tug the bark shut in her red light and showed her green light to the propeller; a fact which, if true, would show that she had left her line of direction and shot off at nearly right angles with the course of the tug. It seemed to be in proof that the bark, though a well-steering vessel, had not steered well after the tug through the night; and the allegation of the steamer was that the bark having begun to make sail preparatory to steering down the lake, had misunderstood the whistle sounded by the tug, a theory which the evidence of the mate supported. But whether she had made any such sheer as would have made this accident unavoidable, if the steamer had not been first guilty of the greatest faults, was another question; and whether, if she had made such a sheer, the steamer had not been the cause of her doing so, was yet a third one.

The reader thus sees that the case involved two points:

First. One of mere fact, dependent on conflicting testimony, which it would not be at all worth while to report, whether there was a sheer but for which the catastrophe would not have occurred.

Second. A point of law, whether, if so, it was in view of the propeller's previous conduct, a fault.

The District Court, taking one view of the evidence, considered, apparently, that the alleged sheer was nothing more than the bark's keeping on her course before she had time to swing round and follow the tug, a matter which that court considered would, to those on the steamer, look just like a sheer.

That court held, therefore, that the propeller was alone to blame, and it dismissed the libel.

Diagram illustrating the libellant's general view.

Diagram illustrating the respondent's general view.

On appeal to the Circuit Court, while that court was fully of the opinion with the District Court, that the propeller was in great fault in driving at a reckless rate in narrow water, where vessels in tow usually cut off from their tugs, and where a small channel is liable to be crowded by numerous tows-as this channel at this tiem actually was crowded-yet making a somewhat different case on the evidence from that which the District Court had assumed, it inculpated the bark also. On the first point-the liability of the steamer-it said thus:

'It is clear that the libellants knew that the Detroit River, on account of the magnitude of its commerce, and the number of tugs with loaded vessels passing through it, had to be navigated with great watchfulness and care, and that the tug and bark whose lights they had made, as they were descending the river, could not be handled, in case of peril, as well as the propeller could. Notwithstanding these things, we find these officers managing their boat without regard to the dangers of navigating this river, and exercising no more watchfulness than if they had been navigating the open lake. Although they saw the lights of the tug and bark, and pronounced them to be very bright, at the distance of two miles, yet they did not change the course of their boat until the tug had signalled them to do it, and at this time the vessels had approached within half a mile of each other. But even then, by the practice of reasonable seamanship, all trouble could have been avoided. If the propeller, instead of porting half a point, or three-fourths even, had gone a point further to the eastward, the collision could not have taken place. There was nothing in the way of her doing this, for the river was wide enough, and there were no lights closing on them from the east. To put only one hundred feet between her and the tug, when she could, with safety to herself, put a greater distance between them, considering the circumstances of this navigation, was bad seamanship. Watchful and careful officers, having due regard to the rights of persons and property, would not have taken the risk that the officers of the propeller did. They surely risked enough by not changing the course of their boat until she was close on to the tug. Common vigilance required that when they changed the course of the propeller they should have made a more decided change. But these officers, besides not going further to the eastward, were in fault in not checking the speed of their boat. They should not have entered a narrow river where in the night there is always more or less danger of collision, without materially slackening the speed at which they had been running. And this was only the more incumbent on them, because, at so short a distance from the tug and bark, they should, as careful seamen, have apprehended the possibility of danger.'

On the second point-the liability of the bark after examining the evidence-the Circuit Court said thus:

'It is plain, notwithstanding the faults of the propeller, that this disaster would not have occurred had the bark followed, as she was required to do, the course of the tug. That she did not follow after the tug, but when the propeller was abreast of the tug, sheered to the port of the tug, shutting out from the propeller her red light, and showing only her green light, and continued on in this course until she struck the propeller on her port side, as she was swinging to starboard, is a fact clearly established by the weight of the evidence. . . . I agree that it is not easy to reconcile the sheering of the bark, with the testimony of those on board of her, but we are more concerned to know that the sheering did occur, than to show how it occurred. . . . The conduct of the bark was the result of either mistaken orders or careless management. We have the testimony of the mate that an important signal was mistaken, and it is not at all unlikely that the error in management commenced with this mistake. It is in proof, that the bark through the night did not steer after the tug, and as she was a good steering vessel, the inference is plain, that there was a want of proper observation on the part of those who had her in charge. The approach of the propeller was not regarded by her, because the officers of the deck understood the signal of the tug for casting off line, instead of an approaching vessel. If a vessel is in tow, she is not therefore excused from keeping close watch, and observing and obeying all signals. The duty of watchfulness was the greater, because the river was full of boats, and light as the night was, there was more necessity for it, than if it had been daylight, but this duty does not seem to have been appreciated by the officers of the bark. When the bark made the sudden sheer to port, the propeller not being required to anticipate it, did all she could under the circumstances, put her wheel hard a port.

'It follows from what has been said, that a decree should be entered, dividing the loss.'

The case was now here on appeal by the owners of the bark. The owners of the steamer did not appeal, being content to pay half the loss; and they seeking simply an affirmance of the decree of the Circuit Court.

Mr. George B. Hibbard, for the appellant:

I. Collated the evidence with skill, to show

1. That in point of fact there was no sheer, but that the tug's running off to starboard upon a line divergent half a point, while the bark sagged down the stream, caused the same appearance which the vessels would have presented had the tug kept her course and the bark sheered, and that this most natural ocular deception caused such of the witnesses as swore innocently that the bark sheered, to make that mistake; and that this running to starboard of the tug, and sagging down stream of the heavily laden bark, with her deep draught of water, unable as she was to obey her port helm as quickly as did the tug, caused the collision to happen in the precise manner in which it did.

2. That it was a physical impossibility that the bark could have so sheered as to have caused the exact sort of collision, which confessedly had taken place, and the particular form of wound which was found to have been left. This position was elaborately and ably argued on the evidence, with the aid of diagrams.

II. Passing to the point of law, Mr. Hibbard argued that it was difficult to reconcile the two parts of the opinion in the Circuit Court. Upon the facts set forth and arguments made in the first part, the conclusions reached in the second did not properly 'follow.' The reverse of them were the true consequences. Upon perusal of the latter part of the opinion, the conclusion, it was argued, could not be avoided, that the court had lost sight of the substantial rule, that that vessel, which, through fault, causes haste, alarm, and peril, shall not escape the consequences of such fault by imputing something to another vessel which has been caused by the haste, alarm, and peril thus brought about. The maritime law, the learned counsel contended, would not tolerate inquiry in favor of a wrongdoer, as to even probable error committed by another. It would not countenance the weighing of possible culpabilities against the ascertained faults of a positive offender, much less the comparison of some shade of imaginable mistake with the transgressions of one absolutely and indefensibly in the wrong. The Circuit Court had assumed that if the bark did sheer division of damages must follow. This was fundamental error. To make any vessel wholly or partly responsible she must commit a fault. To commit a fault is to violate some rule, some duty. To sheer is not a fault, it is but an accident. For accident no man is responsible. The actual question in collision cases never is, 'What was done?' It is, 'Which committed fault?' It was a great mistake to say, as was said, in the Circuit Court, that 'the court was more concerned to know that the sheering did occur than to show how it occurred.' The very opposite of this proposition was the true one. How anything occurs in a collision case is of every consequence, for it is in the manner of the occurrence, its cause, that fault must exist or not exist. The ascertainment of the facts only aids in arriving at the conclusion, wherein, and what, and how many were the faults which produced the result. It is of but little if any aid to conclude, if this thing had been done or not done, no collision would have happened. In almost every collision, if anything different had been done, there would have been no collision. In the opinion delivered in the Circuit Court, it is assumed that if the bark sheered, it was something which the propeller was not bound to guard against. But was not the propeller bound to guard against the natural consequences of the haste, alarm, and peril she created? Nay, more, was she not bound so to navigate, so to obey plain rules, that haste, alarm, and peril should not arise?That the propeller was guilty, many times guilty; that she violated statute and rule, is emphatically declared and enforced by the Circuit Court; that she brought about the haste, alarm, and peril, in the midst of which this collision took place, is not to be doubted. Can it be that under such circumstances the bark can be held even partly responsible for the result thus caused? Such a doctrine will inflict a blow upon commerce which commerce can scarcely sustain; for practical men will not risk property and incur the hazards of a hazardous business beneath rules of such impracticable severity.

Messrs. Spalding and Dickman, contra, argued in support of the decree below.

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

title: The Maria Martin


text: Talk:The Maria Martin

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

title: Talk:The Maria Martin


text:
The Maria Martin/Opinion of the Court

Appeals under the additional act 'to amend the judicial system' are subject to the same rules, regulations, and restrictions as are prescribed in case of writs of error. Both parties in a civil action may sue out a writ of error, to a final judgment, but where one party only exercises the right the other cannot assign error in the appellate court; and the same right to remove the cause from the subordinate to the appellate court for re-examination is secured to both parties by the act of Congress allowing appeals, instead of writs of error, in cases of equity or of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, or of prize or no prize, as provided in the second section of the act allowing such appeals. Subject to the same rules and regulations as in case of writs of error, both parties may appeal, in an equity, admiralty, or prize suit, from the final decree of the subordinate court, but the appeal, when entered in the appellate court, is also subject to the same restrictions as are prescribed in case of writs of error. Where each party appeals each may assign error, but where only one party appeals the other is bound by the decree in the court below, and he cannot assign error in the appellate court, nor can he be heard if the proceedings in the appeal are correct, except in support of the decree from which the appeal of the other party is taken. Apply that rule to the present case and it is clear that the appellees cannot be heard in opposition to the decree of the Circuit Court, as they did not appeal from that decree.

They were owners and freighters of the steam propeller Cleveland, and they filed the libel in the District Court in a cause of collision, civil and maritime, against the bark Maria Martin to recover damages for the loss of the steamer and her cargo on the twenty-second of June, 1867, occasioned by a collision between the bark and the steamer, near the mouth of the Detroit River, whereby the steamer, with all her cargo on board, consisting of sugar, and other merchandise of great value, was sunk in five fathoms of water and became a total loss.

Four days before the disaster the steamer started from Ogdensburg, in the State of New York, and she was bound on a voyage from that port to the port of Chicago, in the State of Illinois, laden as aforesaid, and having fifty persons on board as passengers. None of these facts are denied by the claimants, but the libellants also allege that the collision was occasioned without any fault on the part of the steamer, and by the negligence, inattention, and want of proper care and skill on the part of those in charge of the bark, which is expressly denied in the answer.

Heavily laden with a cargo of grain, the bark was proceeding down the river, and was bound on a voyage from Chicago to Buffalo, in the State of New York, both the colliding vessels being duly enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade on those waters. Propelled by her own motive power the steamer had complete and effective command of her own movements. On the other hand the principal motive power of the bark was the engine of the tug, with which she was connected by means of a hawser paid out from the forward part of the vessel, three hundred feet or more in length, and made fast to the samson post of the tug, being what is called in such navigation a stern line, as the design was that the vessel without motive power should follow the tug which had her in tow, but the bark on this occasion had unfurled, or 'pretty well made,' her mainsail, and her mainstaysail, as she had nearly reached the place in the river where vessels in tow usually cast off from the tug, and her master and other officers were in charge of her deck.

Prior to rounding Bar Point, on the Canada shore, the course of the steamer had been west by north, but shortly after passing that point she changed her course to north by east, and headed for Bois Blanc light, as alleged by the libellants. In coming round, or immediately after she was put upon her new course, she made the lights of the tug and tow descending the river towards the lake, heading south-southwest, at the distance, as supposed, of two miles, and not far from two o'clock in the morning.

Attempt is made in argument to show that the lookout of the steamer was incompetent, but the objection is without any legal importance, as the lights of the tug and tow were seasonably seen by all those in charge of the deck of the steamer. They first made the red signal light of the tug and of the tow half a point over their starboard bow, and the evidence shows that the tug having the bark in tow made the green signal light of the steamer one-fourth of a point over her port bow.

Mutual fault is charged, that is, each charges the other with fault, and it is quite evident that one or both must be guilty of the charge, as neither imputes any fault to the tug, and the evidence fully satisfies the court that it was good weather, a bright starlight night, a moderate wind, and smooth water.

Where negligence or fault is shown to have been committed by either party the rule that the loss must rest where it fell, as in case of inevitable accident, can have no application, for if the fault was one committed by the claimant's vessel alone, then the libellant is entitled to recover; or if by the libellant's vessel alone, then the libel must be dismissed; or if both vessels were in fault, then the settled rule of law is that the damages must be apportioned between the offending vessels.

Doubtless the district judge applied the second rule, as he entered a decree dismissing the libel, but the Circuit Court came to the conclusion from the evidence that both of the colliding vessels were in fault, and reversed the decree of the District Court, and entered a decree that each should pay a moiety of the damages and their own costs, and from that decree the claimants of the bark appealed to this court, but the libellants did not appeal, and of course they cannot assign error nor can they be heard in opposition to the last-named decree. On the contrary the decree is conclusive as against the libellants, that the steamer was in fault, and the only question presented by the appeal of the claimants is whether the Circuit Court erred in determining that the bark also was in fault, for if she was, then the decree of the Circuit Court must be affirmed, but if she was not, then the decree of the Circuit Court must be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to enter a decree affirming the decree of the District Court.

Vessels engaged in commerce are held liable for damage occasioned by collision on account of the complicity, direct or indirect, of their owners, or the negligence, want of care or skill on the part of those employed in their navigation. Owners appoint the master and employ the crew, and consequently are held responsible for their conduct in the management of the vessel.

Allusion was frequently made in the course of the argument to the fact that the bark was in charge of a tug, which renders it necessary to make one or two remarks upon that subject before proceeding to examine the real question presented for decision.

Whenever the tug is under the charge of her own master and crew, and in the usual and ordinary course of her employment undertakes to transport another vessel, which for the time being has neither her master nor crew on board, from one point to another, over waters where such accessory motive power is necessary, or usually employed, she is legally responsible for the navigation of both vessels. Cases arise, undoubtedly, where both the tug and the tow are jointly liable for the consequences of a collision, as when those in charge of the respective vessels jointly participate in their control and management, and the master and crew of each vessel are either deficient in skill, omit to take due care, or are guilty of negligence in their navigation. Where the officers and crew of the tow, as well as the officers and crew of the tug, participate in the navigation of the vessels, and a collision with another vessel ensues, the tug alone, or the tow alone, or both jointly may be liable for the consequences according to the circumstances, as the one or the other or both jointly were either deficient in skill or were culpably inattentive or negligent in the performance of their duties. Much examination of that subject, however, is unnecessary in this case, as neither party imputes any fault to the tug, and it is clear from the evidence that the imputation, if made, could not be sustained, as it fully appears that she seasonably ported her helm and allowed the steamer to pass her in safety.

All three of the vessels, that is, the tug, the tow, and the steamer, had their signal lights properly displayed, and the respective lights were burning brightly and were easily distinguishable. Suggestion is made that the lookout of the steamer was incompetent, but the suggestion is entitled to no weight, even if it be well founded in fact, as the proof is entirely satisfactory that the two colliding vessels were seen by each other in season to have taken every precaution to have avoided a collision. They were approaching each other from nearly opposite directions, which clearly rendered it proper, as between the tug and the steamer, that each should port their helms and pass to the right. Seasonable attention to that rule would certainly have prevented a collision if the tow had followed the movement of the tug, as she was bound to do, without unnecessary delay.

Although the bark was larger than the steamer, yet her headway was about the same as that of the steamer, as she was somewhat aided by the current in addition to the motive power of the tub. Larger in size and of greater length than the steamer she probably would not obey her helm quite as quick as the tug or the steamer, but the evidence in the case fails to satisfy the court that the difference in that respect contributed in any degree to the collision.

Probably those in charge of the steamer hesitated for a time as to which side of the tug they would pass, as they proceeded on their course, heading nearly stem on, until the tug and steamer approached within half a mile or less of each other, when the tug sounded one whistle and in half a minute repeated the same, as a signal that she wished the steamer to pass on her port side. To that signal the steamer responded, giving one whistle to signify her assent to that request, and immediately ported her helm, and the tug at the same time ported her own helm, turning the vessel half a point to the starboard, and became steady on her course, the tug and steamer passing each other port to port, leaving a berth between the vessels of about one hundred feet, as appears by the weight of the tesimony.

Undisputed proof is exhibited that the steamer ported her helm, and that she turned to the right half a point and then steadied and continued her course, and it is quite clear that there would have been no collision if the bark had ported her helm and followed the tug, and it is highly probable that the disaster would not have happened if she had kept her course without changing her helm, but she neither ported her helm nor kept her course, as is fully shown by the evidence. Instead of turning to the right, as she should have done, she starboarded her helm when the steamer was alongside the tug and sheered to port, shutting out from the steamer the view of her red light and showing only her green light, and continued on that course till she struck the steamer. Orders were given by those in charge of the steamer to put her helm hard-a-port, but it was too late, and the collision took place.

Many theories have been advanced by the claimants as showing that the bark did not sheer, but it is not possible to adopt any one of them without rejecting conceded facts or facts fully proved, or without coming to the conclusion that the two vessels did not collide, which would be in direct conflict both with the libel and answer and the testimony of every witness in the case who was present when the steamer sunk in the river.

Ingenious efforts are also made in argument to show that the berth between the steamer and the tug when they passed each other was not so great as that represented by the libellants. Suppose that theory be admitted, still it cannot benefit the claimants, so long as it is conceded that the distance between them at the time was sufficient to enable them to pass in safety, and that the steamer, while they were abreast, ported her helm and turned to the right, which is as satisfactorily proved as it is that the steamer and tug passed each other in safety.

Proved as these facts are beyond doubt, it is vain to suppose that any theory can be adopted by the court which will make it necessary for the court to shut their eyes to the evidence by which those facts are established. Suffice it to say, the collision did occur, and the court is satisfied that the wheelsman of the bark misunderstood the order to port and supposed it was an order to starboard preparatory to casting off from the tug. He knew that the bark, while she continued in tow, ought to follow the tug, but they had reached the place where vessels in tow usually cast off from the tug, and the master was engaged in adjusting the towage account, and all on deck were looking for the order to cast off, and under those circumstances it is less strange than it otherwise might have been that the wheelsman should have made such a mistake. Undoubtedly it was a great mistake, but it has been fully proved, and it is clear that the collision would not have occurred if it had not been made.

Whether the steamer was or was not also in fault is not a question in this case, as that question was conclusively settled in the Circuit Court, but it may not be improper to remark that if she was so it was because she did not put her helm hard-a-port before she passed the tug, and the moment those in charge of her navigation noticed that the bark had shut in her red light and began to display her green light, showing that she had starboarded her helm and was turning to the left.

Errors committed by one of two vessels approaching each other from opposite directions do not excuse the other from adopting every proper precaution required by the special circumstances of the case to prevent a collision, as the act of Congress provides that in obeying and construing the prescribed rules of navigation due regard must be had to the special circumstances rendering a departure from them necessary in order to avoid immediate danger.

Viewed in the light of that exceptional rule, the better opinion, perhaps, is that the entire decree of the Circuit Court was correct.

DECREE AFFIRMED.

title: The Maria Martin/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:The Maria Martin/Opinion of the Court


text: Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company v. Dubois


text: Talk:Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company v. Dubois


text:
Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company v. Dubois/Opinion of the Court

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland.

Dubois brought suit against the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company, for damages for an infringement of a patent granted to him September 23d, 1862, for 'a new and useful improvement in the mode of building piers for bridges and other structures and setting the same.' The alleged improvement was asserted to have been used by the company in building their railroad bridge across the Susquehanna at Havre de Grace.

In his specification, Dubois, the patentee, after reference to diagrams accompanying his schedule, thus described his inventions, referring to the diagrams by corresponding letters; here with the diagrams themselves omitted, as occupying space, and not indispensably necessary to a comprehension of the invention.

'In the building and setting of piers for bridges and other structures in beds of rivers or streams, it has been found necessary, in most instances, to erect stationary coffer-dams at the points where the piers are to be located. This operation requires a water-tight chamber to be constructed up from the bed of the river, and then emptied of its water by a pumping process, before the building of the pier can be proceeded with. The expense and inconvenience of this operation, as well as that of all other modes of building and setting piers in rivers, greatly enhances the cost of building bridges.

'With my invention much of the inconvenience and expense thus incurred will be obviated, and a much firmer structure obtained.

'To enable others skilled in the are to perform with my invention, I will proceed to describe its construction and operation:

'To construct piers for a bridge across a river or stream from a solid foundation, by first driving long temporary piles into the bed of the stream, outside of a given space. These piles are left extending up above the surface of the water. Then either drive down between and near about the long piles other short piles or firmly imbed rock or other substantial material into the earth or river bed, and, if desirable, slip down over the piles one or more broad and heavy stones or timbers, and imbed the same firmly into the soil, so that they rest down upon the foundation, and form a flat surface. Next construct a strong timber or other suitable character of platform, and bolt to its upper side one section of a hollow rectangular or other desirable form of box or tube, which is used to incase and strengthen the pier; the said tube being composed of boiler-plate metal, or other suitable material, and its lower section having a bolting flange on its lower edge, running inward at right angles to its sides, so as to bolt horizontally to the platform. This platform and section of the tube are caulked and pitched, or cemented, so as to be water-tight at bottom and on all sides, except at top, where it is fully open. The first and several other sections of the tube should be strengthened laterally and longitudinally from sides and ends by means of strong rods.

'The structure should now be filled to slide down over the sustaining and guide piles by cutting vertical holes, corresponding with the shape of the piles, through the platform. The structure, when thus fitted to the piles and let down to the surface of the water, floats, by reason of its buoyancy. The upper ends of the piles are now framed together with ties, so as to stand firm. The preparatory steps for building and setting the pier having thus been consummated, and additional sections provided, so as to be brought into use as required, the stonemason commences to lay the solid pier within the floating coffer-dam, using for the purpose common stone, or other material deemed suitable. As soon as a sufficient height of mason-work has been set in the first section to cause the structure to descend nearly level with the surface of the water, another section is bolted, or otherwise firmly fastened upon the top edge of the first, so as to give the proper buoyancy and safety for continuing the work. This done, the mason proceeds further with his work, and builds up the pier until it again becomes necessary to increase the buoyancy, when he bolts on other sections of boiler tubing, and proceeds with the building of the pier until the platform and pier rest down and become 'set' upon the foundation. He now finishes the pier above the water without using any more sections of tubing, and may, if he deems best, use fine-cut stone, or other finished material, or he may, if desirable, continue the tubing to the top of the pier, so as to obtain additional strength.

'When the pier is completed, the piles are sawed off just above the top of the platform, and their stumps, in connection with the weight of the pier, serve to prevent lateral movement of the platform and pier on its foundation.

'A metal sectional boiler-plate tube has been described as the casing for the pier, because such tube possesses great strength at small expense, and will serve to bind and support the masonry of the pier. It however is obvious that a floating water-tight coffer-dam, operating on the principle described, might be made of wood, or other material than boiler-plate metal, and when the pier is finished, the floating coffer-dam may be removed from around it, leaving the pier wholly uncovered from base to top. The removed structure may be used in erecting other piers, if desirable.

'I have given a minute description of means for carrying out my invention, but I do not wish to be confined to those means, but desire to be protected in the principle of operation embodied in a floating coffer-dam, substantially as described for building and setting piers for bridges and other structures.

'Having described one mode of carrying out my invention, what I claim and desire to secure by letters-patent is:

'1st. Building and setting piers by means of a floating coffer-dam, substantially as set forth.

'2d. The use of the tube which constitutes the dam for incasing and strengthening the pier, substantially as set forth.

'3d. The guide-piles (A A) in combination with a floating coffer-dam, substantially, as and for the purpose set forth.'

1st. The general issue.

2d. That the letters-patent were obtained by fraud and imposition on the Patent Office.

3d. Want of originality.

Issue was joined on the first plea, and on replications to the second and third.

At the trial it became a material question for what invention the patent was granted, and especially what the first claim of the patentee was intended to cover. Was it a device, a structure, or an instrument designed for use in a process, or was it a process itself? The defendants contended that the patent, so far as it covered the first claim, was for a process of building and setting piers, which process consisted of driving temporary piles in the bed of a stream outside of a given space, then preparing a suitable foundation for a pier, then making a strong timber, or other suitable character of platform, and bolting upon its upper surface a section of a hollow rectangular or other desirable form of box, to be made of boiler-plate metal, or other suitable material, strengthend laterally and longitudinally from sides and ends by means of strong rods, and fitted to slide down over the guide piles first driven, by cutting vertical holes through the platforms, then laying the masonry of the pier in this box, made water-tight, adding sections from time to time as the increasing weight of the masonry required, and as the box with its contents sunk, until the platform and pier, incased by the different sections of the box, rested and became set upon the foundation prepared, when the guidepiles are sawed off just above the top of the timber or other platform so that their stumps in connection with the weight of the pier may serve to prevent lateral movement of the platform and pier on the foundation. Holding such opinions of the nature of the invention the defendants asked the court thus to construe the patent, and to instruct the jury that the words 'substantially as described' in the specification (when speaking of the 'principle of operation' which the patentee desired to have protected), and the words 'substantially as set forth' in the first claim, refer to that process, and hence, that unless the defendants used that process as detailed, as well the platform, composing in part the floating coffer-dam fitted to slide down the guide-piles referred to, by cutting vertical holes through it, and sawing off the stumps of the piles just above the top of the platform, when the pier is completed, as also the other parts of the process claimed in the first claim, the plaintiff could not recover for an infringement of that claim. This instruction the court refused to give, construing the claim to be, not for a process, but for a device, or instrument to be employed in a process, the instrument being a floating coffer-dam constructed as described in the specification, in which the masonry of the pier might be laid and sunk to the foundation by its own gravity.

In construing the second and third claims, the court thus charged:

'The second claim of the plaintiff's patent is for the use of the tube or material of which the dam is made, for incasing and strengthening the pier; that is, it shall be so constructed that it can be used for the casing and strengthening the pier, no matter whether it be first placed in position entire, or be built in sections as the masonry progresses.

'The third claim of the plaintiff's patent is for a combination of a floating coffer-dam, as claimed in the first claim, with guide-piles, which are driven into the bottom of the river, around the site of the proposed pier, and reach above the surface of the water, and pass through holes in the platform, and have their tops framed together with ties; when the pier building, they are to sustain and keep upright the tube with its pier inside, and to guide it down to its foundation prepared at the bottom of the river; when the pier is finished they are then to be cut off just above the top of the platform, and their stumps left to prevent any lateral movement of the platform and pier on its foundation.'In the course of the trial, and in support of the plea that the letters-patent were obtained by fraud and imposition, the testimony of one George A. Parker, the engineer of the railroad company, defendant in the case, by whom the bridge was designed and built, and of a certain Crossman, in the service of the company, and standing in some intimate subordinate relation to Parker, was given by the defendant, the object of which was to show that the plaintiff had fraudulently obtained his patent for what was in fact the invention of Parker. It tended to show that prior to 1861, Parker, a civil engineer since 1838, and who, as already stated, had built the bridge, in the laying of whose piers the alleged infringement consisted, had conceived the plan on which the piers in this bridge were laid, going to different places to look at large bridges, and making many experiments and investigations; all with a view to building the piers for this particular bridge. That in the spring of 1861, when work on the bridge had been begun, and estimates for iron in the piers had been received, Crossman informed Mr. Parker that 'a man named Dubois, who had some notions about bridge building, wanted to see him.' That Parker being willing to see him, some delay intervening, a time was fixed for an interview, and the man, this Dubois, introduced; that Dubois had previously told Crossman that he wanted to talk with Parker about the foundations of the Susquehanna bridge; that he himself, when thus speaking with Crossman about the foundations, described the cribwork for foundation, but never described sectional caissons; and that when afterwards introduced to Parker, he 'described' a simple wooden structure, a crib made of raft timbers, put together in the ordinary way, in form a parallelogram, to be built partly on shore and partly on the river. How he was to sink it, or how guide it to the bottom, Parker, the witness, did not remember: it was to be filled with rough stones, and was to sink as it was filled; that on this Parker asked Dubois if he was aware that his masonry would be torn away by the floods, to which Dubois replied that he would throw out ballast on the outside and bring it to the top of the pier. Parker then said, 'Now, I will tell you my plan,' and proceeded to describe it accordingly, when Dubois remarked, 'I like your plan, all except the iron.' Parker then replied that the iron was the only new thing about it, the especially valuable thing. Dubois then objected to the expense of iron, when Parker made a calculation showing that it would be cheap; Dubois then said, 'Your plan is the best,' and asked whether Parker could not give him something to do for the bridge, as he had a lumber-yard and sawmill at Havre de Grace. Parker promised to apply to him if there was any occasion, and they parted. In September Dubois got his patent. Afterwards meeting Dubois, Dubois said to him, 'I understand you claim to be the inventor of this way of putting down the piers.' To which Parker replied, 'Don't speak to me again during your natural life. If you have any business with me or the company, do it through your lawyer.' This was in the autumn of 1862.

On the other hand, Dubois himself being examined, testified that in June, 1862, when he asked Crossman to procure for him an interview with Mr. Parker, he described confidentially to Crossman his plan of building piers; that this plan was essentially the same as that adopted in the Susquehanna bridge; that being introduced some days afterwards to Parker, whom Crossman in the meantime had seen, in order ostensibly to get Parker's leave to introduce Dubois to him, Parker described to him, as his own, the same plan that he, Dubois, had described a few days before to Crossman, except that the same use was not made of the boiler-iron. Dubois in giving his testimony proceeded: 'Witness did not then state to Parker that the plan was his own, because from circumstances he felt sure that Crossman had disclosed it. Witness at once applied for and obtained a patent. Crossman being charged with having disclosed the plan to Parker denied it, and then said perhaps he did, and would think it over. At a subsequent interview he denied it.'

Upon this part of the case the defendant's counsel-by one of his prayers for instructions, the eighth-asked the court to charge:'That if the jury should find that the plaintiff, in the spring of 1861, explained his invention to the witnesses who testified upon the subject, by verbal statements only, but without reducing the same to practice by making a drawing, model, or written specification thereof; and that, prior to the application of the plaintiff for a patent, Parker, the engineer of the defendants, superintending the construction of their bridge across the Susquehanna, had devised and perfected the plan afterwards pursued for building and setting the piers of the said bridge, and was actually engaged in preparing for the work of actual construction when, as testified by the said Parker, the plaintiff called on him and heard the plan described without making any claim thereto, but afterwards applied for and obtained the patent on which the present action is founded, then the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.'

One of the pleas, having been as it will be remembered, want of originality, the defendants had given to the plaintiff this notice:

'Take notice, that at the trial of the above cause, evidence will be offered to show that you were not the original and first inventor in the improvement in the mode of building piers for bridges, for which letters-patent of the United States were issued to you on the 23d September, 1862, but that a prior knowledge of the improvement aforesaid was had by the parties whose names and residences are given in a schedule hereto annexed, and that the same had been used in the construction of the bridge of the defendants, across the Susquehanna River, between Havre de Grace and Perryville; and that the said improvement had been described in 'Mahan's Civil Engineering' anterior to your supposed invention; and further, as special matter, testimony will be offered to show that you surreptitiously and unjustly obtained your said patent for that which was in fact invented by George A. Parker, engineer of said bridge, who was using reasonable diligence in adapting and perfecting the same.'

The notice was given in professed pursuance of the 15th section of the Patent Act of 1836, which enacts that a defendant may plead the general issue and after notice give evidence that the patentee was not the original and first inventor; or that the thing patented had been described in some public work anterior to the supposed discovery, or that the patentee had surreptitiously or unjustly obtained the patent for that which was in fact invented or discovered by another who was using reasonable diligence in adapting and perfecting the same, 'in either of which cases' the act declares that 'judgment shall be rendered for the defendant.' It proceeds:

'That whenever the defendant relies in his defence on the fact of a previous invention, knowledge, or use of the thing patented, he shall state, in his notice of special matters, the names and places of residence of those whom he intends to prove to have possessed a prior knowledge of the thing, and where the same had been used.'

Testimony having been given tending to show want of originality, the defendant in his last prayer asked the court to instruct the jury:

'That, upon the issues joined, the question was open before them, whether the plaintiff was or was not the first and original inventor of the improvement described in the patent of the 23d September, 1862, offered in evidence; and that in considering the said question, the jury may and ought to consider the evidence in the cause in relation to the state of the art of building and setting piers known at the time of the alleged invention of the plaintiff described in said patent.'

The court refused to give this instruction, but instructed the jury thus:

'In reference to the question, whether the plaintiff is the original and first inventor of the three claims made by him in his said patent, the jury have a right to take into consideration the knowledge which they may find to have been possessed, prior to the date of plaintiff's patent, by the several witnesses whose names are given in the notice of defence in this case, and who have been examined; and also the description of such constructions in 'Mahan's Civil Engineering,' and the patent of Parker, dated 6th September, 1864; and also all description of his invention made by plaintiff to any one prior to the date of his said patent, in the year 1861 or '62; and also to the conversation (whatever the jury may find that to have been) between the plaintiff and the engineer of defendants in 1862, prior to the date of plaintiff's application for a patent.'

It also charged (in its 6th instruction) that if the jury found that the defendant had infringed and that the plaintiff was the true inventor, they could, in ascertaining the actual damages the plaintiff had sustained, &c., take into consideration the state of the art at the time of the plaintiff's invention, its utility over old modes, and the saving which had accrued to the defendant.

The defendants now brought the case here, on error, for refusal to give the instructions asked, and on account of the instructions given.

Messrs. W. Schley and T. Donaldson, for the plaintiff in error:

1. The first claim is for the specified means of effecting the result of placing a pier in a stream in a condition of preparedness for the reception of the bridge. Those means embrace a floating coffer-dam, constructed, used and guided, as described in the specification; and also embrace the specified devices and contrivances for constructing, using and guiding, the said coffer-dam, up to the point of the completeness of the pier.

The language of the claim is for 'building and setting piers.' It is not for the coffer-dam, nor for the use of the coffer-dam separately, but for the use of the coffer-dam, described in the specification, constructed as therein mentioned, grandully lowered by the weight of the masonry, and guided, in its descent, by guide-piles, in the manner mentioned in the specification, all co-operating to produce the result to be accomplished, namely: building and setting a finished pier in a river or stream.

In the first paragraph of the specification, the patentee claims to have invented 'a new and useful improvement in building piers for bridges and other structures, and setting the same.' His first claim is for this improvement, and was intended to cover the whole.

In another part of the specification, after mentioning certain preparatory steps, he proceeds to show how the platform was to be constructed, the first section of the hollow tube to be bolted thereon, &c., 'for the building and setting the pier;' and then follows a description of the whole process of building and lowering the pier in its gradual guided descent until, in his own language, 'the pier rests down and becomes 'set' upon the foundation.'

The first claim is for a process. A process may, undoubtedly, be the basis of a patent, where no part of the means employed, separately considered, is new, or claimed as new. The combination of co-operating constituent elements, so combined and operating as to produce a new useful result, or a known result in a new and useful way, is patentable. In such a case, the patent stands upon the combination or process.

In the construction given, as to this first claim, it is limited to so much of the process as is necessary to building the pier. It ignores the idea of a process for building and setting. It does not regard the guide-piles, as embraced by the first claim, nor the holes in the platform, as part of the means employed in the mode of accomplishing what he claims as his invention in this first claim.

In view of the evidence introduced by the defendant, it was very material that the jury should have been properly instructed as to this first claim.

2. The second claim of the plaintiff is 'for the use of the tube, which constitutes the dam for incasing and strengthening the pier, substantially as set forth.'

The words 'substantially as set forth' require that we should recur to the specification to see what sort of a tube is there described. And it seems to be plain that he claims a sectional caisson. His direction is,-to bolt to the upper side of the platform 'one section of a hollow rectangular box or tube.' He speaks, again, of 'the first and several other sections,' and of 'additional' sections.

But the court construes this claim as embracing the use of the tube, 'whether it be first placed in position entire, or be built in sections as the masonry progresses.' In this ruling the court, we think, was in error.

3. The eighth prayer of the defendant ought to have been granted. By the second plea, fraud and imposition, in the obtaining of the patent, were directly charged, and issue was joined on a replication to this plea. Strong evidence was given tending to show the alleged fraud. If found it would have been destructive of the patent.

On another ground the instruction should have been given. The testimony of Mr. Parker shows, and Dubois himself admits that, in the conversation between them, Dubois did not disclose the fact, if such was the fact, nor even pretend, that he was the inventor of the mode of building and setting bridges, which Parker, as the engineer of defendant, intended to follow, in constructing and setting the piers. It is a strong case for the application of the doctrine of estoppel in pais. His silence was a justification to Mr. Parker in pursuing the course which he had explained to Dubois he intended to pursue.

The last prayer was framed on the theory that the evidence in relation to the state of the art of building and setting piers, known at the date of plaintiff's patent, was proper to be considered by the jury upon the question whether the plaintiff was the first and original inventor of what he claimed as new. The court, in its sixth instruction, limited the consideration of the state of the art to the question of damages alone.

Messrs. W. H. Armstrong and S. Linn, contra.

Mr. Justice STRONG delivered the opinion of the court.

The court below, refusing to give the first instruction asked for by the defendants, construed the first claim in the plaintiff's patent to be, not for a process, but for a device, or instrument to be employed in a process, the instrument being a floating coffer-dam constructed as described in the specification, in which the masonry of the pier might be laid and sunk to the foundation by its own gravity. In this it is now insisted the court erred. We are of opinion, however, that the construction given to this claim was correct, and that the defendants were not entitled to an affirmative response to their prayer. Undoubtedly a patentee may claim and obtain a patent for an entire combination, or process, and also for such parts of the combination or process as are new and useful, or he may claim and obtain a patent for both. That this patentee did not intend by his first claim to appropriate the process of building and setting piers which he had previously described in his specification is made evident by several considerations. The words by which the claim is immediately preceded tend strongly to show this. The patentee had described the common method of building and setting piers, by a stationary coffer-dam built up from the bottom, out of which the water was pumped. The inconvenience and expense of this he proposed to obviate. He then added, 'to enable others to perform with my invention, I will proceed to describe its construction and operation.' Did he mean construction of a process? Following this was a description of a floating caisson, or coffer-dam, with all the details of its construction, and also of guide-piles, with a mode for their use in directing the coffer-dam in its descent with the pier to the foundation. He then added, 'I have given a minute description of means for carrying out my invention, but I do not wish to be confined to those means [by which he plainly meant process], but desire to be protected in the principle of operation embodied in a floating coffer-dam, substantially as described, for building and setting piers for bridges and other structures.' This can hardly mean anything else than a claim for the principle of operating in building and setting piers through the instrumentality of a floating coffer-dam, substantially such as he had previously described. The language is awkward, but it is reasonably intelligible. It was not the principle of operating by what was embodied in a process, such as had been described, that he desired to be protected in, but that embodied, or wholly contained, in a coffer-dam. This he had described as an improved substitute for a stationary dam. If it was not the method or process that he sought protection for, it is incredible that he would have described it as embodied (that is, collected into a whole) in one of the devices used in the process. Now, reading the first claim in connection with this language of the specification that immediately precedes it, we cannot doubt that the claim is for the instrument, or device, denominated a floating coffer-dam, substantially such as described in the specification, to be used in building and setting piers. It is clear the invention was regarded by the patentee as a different thing from the mode of using it. 'Having,' said he, 'described one mode of carrying out my invention, what I claim and desire to secure by letters-patent is, 1st, building and setting piers by means of a floating coffer-dam, substantially as set forth; 2d, the use of the tube which constitutes the dam for incasing and strengthening the pier, substantially as set forth; 3d, the guide-piles A A, in combination with a floating coffer-dam, substantially as and for the purpose set forth.' If his intention was to claim the process, or a process substantially such as described in the specification, it was easy to say so, and it was worse than useless to mention only one of the means or instruments by which the process was conducted. Looking, also, at the third claim, which is plainly for a combination of devices, a combination of a floating coffer-dam with guide-piles, substantially as described, and for the purposes described, to wit, building and setting piers, it is evident the first claim was for the caission, or coffer-dam. Why claim such a combination if the first claim was for a process of which the guide-piles and the floating dam were essential component parts?

At the argument much importance was attached, on behalf of the plaintiffs in error, to the fact that the language of the claim is, 'building and setting' piers by means of a floating coffer-dam, and it was urged that, in the construction given to it by the court, the idea of 'setting' the pier is ignored. But the setting of a pier by means of a floating dam is inseparable from the construction of a pier. It is a part of the process of building. The building consists in laying the masonry of the pier within the dam, causing it to descend by its own gravity towards the bottom until it reaches the foundation. This descent is the setting. The floating coffer is, therefore, an instrument not only for building, but for setting piers. Hence, if the claim was, as we think, for the floating dam alone, when used for the purpose designated, and not for its use in combination with the other devices, and with the process described in the specification (what the inventor called 'one mode of carrying out his invention'), it was well described as a means for building and setting piers.

The plaintiffs in error also complain that the court construed the second claim of the patent to be for the use of the tube, or material of which the dam is made, for incasing and strengthening the pier, no matter whether it be first placed in position entire or be built in sections as the masonry progresses. It is argued the claim embraced only an iron sectional tube or caisson. It is very manifest, however, that the construction given to it was right. The specification expressly describes the tube as 'composed of boiler-plate metal or other suitable material,' and, again, it states 'that a floating water-tight coffer-dam, operating on the principle described, might be made of wood or other material than boiler-plate metal.' It is equally plain that a tube composed of sections was not exclusively meant. The claim refers to the specification, and that explains both its construction and its possible use in strengthening the piers. By reference to it it will be seen that the tube is not necessarily constituted of several sections. Its formation is described to be, constructing a strong timber or other suitable character of platform, and bolting to its upper side one section of a hollow rectangular, or other desirable form of box or tube, which is used to incase or strengthen the pier, the tube being composed of boiler-plate metal or other suitable material. This platform and section of the tube are then caulked and pitched, or cemented, so as to be water-tight at bottom and on all sides, except at top, and strengthened, laterally and longitudinally, by means of strong rods. It is then complete and ready for all the uses for which it is designed. Sections are added only when required by the depth of the water, and when the tube has sunk in consequence of the masonry laid in it nearly to a level of the water surface, though, if desired, they may be continued to the top of the pier. There is nothing that would justify our holding that the claim demands a tube composed of more than one section. It is the use of the tube, whether longer or shorter, no matter what its shape or material, or of how many parts consisting, that the claim sought to cover.

What has been said is sufficient to show that, in our opinion, the Circuit Court did not misinterpret the first, the second, or the third claim of the patentee.

The next assignment of error, not disposed of by the observations we have already made, is, that the court refused to charge the jury as requested in the defendants' eighth prayer. The theory of this prayer was twofold. The defendants had pleaded that the letters-patent of the plaintiff were obtained by fraud and imposition on the Patent Office, and the prayer assumed that his not claiming the invention when Parker described his plan for building and setting the piers of the bridge established the fraud pleaded. The prayer also assumed that the plaintiff's silence, when Parker's plans were revealed, coupled with the facts that Parker was, at the time, preparing for the work of actual construction, that he subsequently proceeded with his plan, and that the plaintiff's patent was afterwards applied for and obtained, amounted to an estoppel in pais. It is impossible, however, to discover how the plaintiff's silence on the occasion mentioned tended at all to show a fraud upon the Patent Office, much less that it constituted a fraud in law, so as to justify the court in ruling that he could not maintain his action. And the defendants, when sued for an infringement, were not at liberty to set up as a defence that the patent had been fraudulently obtained, no fraud appearing upon its face.

Nor was there any case presented by the prayer that amounted to an estoppel. No principle is better settled than that a party is not estopped by his silence unless it has misled another to his hurt. There was no evidence of any such misleading stated in the prayer or found in the case. The patent was granted September 23, 1862. It nowhere appears that before that day the defendants had expended one dollar in building their piers. Moreover, the point does not negative knowledge by Parker of the plaintiff's invention before the conversation of which it speaks took place; and there is some reason found in the evidence for believing that the plaintiff's plans had been revealed to Parker by Crossman, to whom the plaintiff had partially explained them, before that conversation. The court could not, therefore, have given the instruction asked, even if the plaintiff was under obligation to disclose his invention to Mr. Parker, which we are not prepared to assert.

The only remaining assignment of error is, that the court declined instructing the jury as requested, that in considering the question whether the plaintiff was or was not the first and original inventor of the improvement described in his patent, they might and ought to consider the evidence in the cause in relation to the state of the art of building and setting piers known at the time of the alleged invention of the plaintiff. Upon this subject the court did charge the jury that they had a right to take into consideration the knowledge which they might find to have been possessed, prior to the date of the plaintiff's patent, by the several witnesses whose names were given in the notice of defence, and who had been examined; and also the description of such constructions in Mahan's Civil Engineering, and the patent of George A. Parker, and also all description of his invention made by the plaintiff to any one prior to the date of his patent in 1861 or '62, and also the conversation (whatever they might find it to have been) between the plaintiff and the engineer of the defendants in 1862, prior to the date of the plaintiff's application for a patent. This was all the defendants had a right to ask. They had given notice of nothing more. They had not apprised the plaintiff that the novelty of his invention would be assailed by any other evidence than such as they had particularized in their notice of defence. While, therefore, evidence in regard to the state of the art was proper to be considered by the court in construing the patent and determining what invention was claimed, it had no legitimate bearing upon the question whether the patentee was the first inventor.

DECREE AFFIRMED.


text: Talk:Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company v. Dubois/Opinion of the Court


text: Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Harris


text: Talk:Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Harris