1885. Original. shoes or hoes, as, in addition to the shifting process, to admit of being raised separately, or the whole series together, as may be found necToenable others skilled in the art to make and use my invention, I will 140 proceed to describe the essary. me with reference to the drawings: Fig.1. с A Reissue. BROWN V. DAVIS. To enable others skilled in the art to make and same with reference to Fig Original. con Reissue. there is a lever, e, by shaft d there is placed a series of levers, ther, to so hang the shoes lever, e, by which it can Upon an axle, A, sup- Upon an axle, A, sup- L it is 661 [242] [243] [244] [245] Original. then stand in a zigzag It is obvious that other mechanical devices may be used for shifting the shoes or hoes from a straight into a zigzag line, or vice versa. I have devised several ways of accomplishing this movement, as, for instance, a sheave, pulley or chain wheel may be keyed to the end of the crank shaft, and to this sheave or wheel a chain may be attached, and, passing around it, extend thence to the lever, so that by working the lever, the same effect would be attained as by the rack and pinion. Another plan may be as follows: A crank or cross arms may be placed on Reissue. nected with them, and It is obvious that other several ways of accomplishing this movement. The rack bar or connecting bar m may be used for this purpose, and thereby the shoes or hoes may be shifted from a straight to a zigzag line, or vice versa, said connecting bar m being held in position, if desired, by any of the usual mechan ical devices for that purpose; second, by means of a sheave, pulley or chain wheel, which may be keyed to the end of the crank shaft, and to this sheave or wheel a chain may be attached, and, passing around it, so that, by means thereof, the same effect can be attained as by the rack and pinion. Original. above mentioned, and Having thus fully de- 1. So attaching the shoes or hoes of a seed planter to the main frame, as that, by means of a lever, or its equivalent, said shoes may be shifted from a straight to a zigzag line, or vice versa, at pleasure, substantially as described. 2. I also claim, in combination with a series of shoes or hoes that are capable of being changed from a straight to a zigzag line, or vice versa, the so connecting of said shoes, by independent levers, to the lifting-bar, as that they may be raised by the operator individually, or as a whole, substantially as described. Reissue. tioned, and are in that position raised up, a pin, 3, in the extreme end of the shaft d, will take against a pin, 4, in the lever H, and thereby shifting the hoes into more nearly a straight line, as they rise or into quite a straight line, depending upon the extent to which they are raised, Having now described my invention, what I claim as new and desire to secure by letters patent is: 1. The shoes or hoes of a seed planter, attached to the main frame substan tially as described, whereby they may be simultaneously shifted from a straight to a zigzag line, or [ vice versa, by a single movement. 2. The shoes or hoes of a sced planter, attached to the main frame, substan tially as described, in combination with a lever or its equivalent, whereby they can be shifted, at the pleasure of the operator, from a straight to a zigzag line, or vice versa. 3. The shoes or hoes of a seed planter, attached to the main frame, substan tially as described, in com3. I also claim hinging|bination with a rod or its the shoe to both its drag equivalent, whereby they bar and its individual can be shifted from a lever, so that the shoe may straight to a zigzag line, or be raised and lowered in vice versa. either of its changed sitions, by a lever that is popermanently located substantially as described." 4. A series of shoes or hoes that are capable of being changed from a straight to a zigzag line, or vice versa, in combination with independent levers, connecting said shoes or hoes with the lifting-bar, whereby they can be raised by the operator individually or as a whole, substantially as described. 5. The shoe hinged to both its drag bar and its individual lever, so that it can be raised or lowered, in either of its changed po sitions, by a lever that is permanently located substantially as described. 6. In combination with a series of shoes or hoes that are capable of being changed by the operator at the rear of the machine, from a straight to a zigzag line, or vice versa, a shaft and lifting lever connected therewith, whereby the whole series can be raised at once by the operator, to pass ob structions, substantially as described." Another plan may be as follows: A crank or cross arms may be placed on the turning shaft, the turning shaft, and, by means of a conand, by means of connecting rod or rods, the necting rods, which con- shaft may be turned by nect the cranks or arms the operator, and the with the levers, the shaft shoes thus thrown into a may be turned, and the straight or zigzag line, as shoes thus thrown into a may be desired; or, instraight or zigzag line, as stead of the crank shaft. may be desired; or, in- the shoes may be united stead of the crank shaft in sets to different bars, to shift the shoes, the which may be straight, The case was heard in the circuit court, on shoes may be united in both bars being united pleadings and proofs, and a decision rendered sets to different bars, to cross bars or heads at in May, 1881 (Davis v. Brown, 19 Blatchf. 263), which may be straight, their ends. Now, by shift- in pursuance of which an interlocutory decree both bars being united to ing the relations of these cross bars or heads at two bars, and by the was entered, in June, 1881, declaring the reistheir ends. Now, by shift- means aforesaid,or by the sued patent to be valid, and to have been ining these two bars, they connecting rod m, the opwill shift the shoes at- erator can shift the shoes fringed as to all its claims, and awarding a retached to them, and or hoes attached to them covery of profits and damages and a perpetual change them into the po- into the positions herein- injunction. On the report of a master, a final sitions hereinabove de- above described. When scribed. When the hoes the hoes are set in a zig-decree was entered in February, 1882, by which are set in a zigzag line, as zag line, as above men- the plaintiffs recovered $5,689.91, as damages and costs. The defendants have appealed to this court. The specification of the original patent stated purpose of the invention to be, to change the seeding shoes or hoes from a straight to a Lag line, and vice versa; and also, to so hang the shoes or hoes as, in addition to the shifting process, to allow the shoes or hoes to be raised together, or any one separately. The mehanical means described in that specification, far shifting the shoes, are these: in the front part of the machine is a rotating shaft with Cranks on it so arranged that the shaft does not have a straight continuous axis, but has sets of in different lines, alternating, so that, es being attached, each to two of the cranks, each two of the cranks having axes in a ferent line from the line of the axes of the ext two adjoining cranks, the yokes being of Substantially equal length, and being connected Crag bars, at the rear ends of the drag bars, the shoes, a rotating motion given to the ank shaft will shift the shoes, by moving all fem, each alternate shoe moving in an opte direction from that in which the shoe sext to it moves, and thus a space being opened closed, of double the distance through which shoe travels. To rotate the crank shaft, ere is a cross shaft in the rear of the machine, the end of which is an upright lever, which ends upwards to form a handle, and has ted to it below a bar which extends forand and the forward end of which is formed rack, which works into a pinion on the of the crank shaft. By moving the lever, Le rack and pinion are worked and the crank at is rotated and the shoes are shifted. The Ent of the rotating movement of the crank is about half a circle, back and forth. original specification says that instead of ying the crank shaft, the shoes may be ed in sets to different bars, which may be ht, both bars being united to cross bars ads, at their ends; and that, by shifting two bars, the shoes attached to them will ed. But there is no more specific deon of mechanism for the purpose, nor drawing of such mechanism. each other, can be simultaneously changed, and a wider space, in a straight line, be opened between any two toes at any time. The shoes are so set that their toes are never in a straight line across, but, when nearest to each other, are somewhat out of a straight line, and the pulling of the rod causes the distance between them to increase. The shoes which move in increasing such distance do so through the rotating motion to and fro of the swinging cross bar to which they are attached, such motion being imparted by the pulling, at the rear of the machine, of the rod attached to the swinging cross bar. In the plaintiffs' machine, the shoes which move, in increasing such distance do so through the rotating motion to and fro of the crank shaft to which they are attached, such motion being imparted by the pushing at the rear of the machine of the rod that carries the rack, the rod being worked by a lever. in the defendant's machine, every alternate is connected with an immovable part of frame, and every other alternate shoe is ced with a swinging cross bar, which down so as to have a motion back and in the arc of a circle, by reason of its beng in bearings in the side of the frame. extends from near the middle of the of the swinging cross bar to the rear part frame, behind the line from which the are suspended, which rod is supported enter of its length, and terminates, at red, in a handle, so that an operator it and, by pulling it, shift simultaall the shoes that are attached to the cross bar. Two coiled springs are so that when the rod is pulled the are compressed; and when the rod is the action of the springs tends to he swinging cross bar and the shoes atit towards the front of the frame ring them to the position from the pulling of the rod moved them. ly alternate shoes are shifted, but the of the toes of the shoes, relatively to An examination of the claims of the original and reissued patents shows that claim 2 of the reissue is substantially the same as claim 1 of the original; that claim 4 of the reissue is substantially the same as claim 2 of the original; and that claim 5 of the reissue is substantially the same as claim 3 of the original. The circuit court held that claim 2 of the reissued was infringed, although in the defendants' machine there is no lever such as the lever H of the patent, and no equivalent or substitute for it. The view taken was, that claim 2 was infringed, because the defendants use a rod, the end of which is pushed and pulled by the hand of the operator, while in the patent the lever H pulls and pushes the end of the rod. But the lever or its equivalent as a mechanical instrument is made an essential element in claim 2, and dispensing with the lever and using instead the human hand is not the use of an equivalent, although in the plaintiffs' machine the hand is applied to work the lever. Water Meter Co. v. Desper, 101 U. S. 332, 337 [Bk. 25, L. ed. 1024, 1026]; Gage v. Herring, 107 U. S.640, 648 and Fay v. Cordesman, 109 U. S. 408, 420, 421 [Bk. 27, L. ed. 601, 604 and 979; .984]; Sargent v. Hall Safe and Lock Co. [ante, 67]. In order to determine what construction ought to be given to the other claims of the reissue, it is necessary to consider an invention made by one Powers, at Madison, Wisconsin, in 1862, the invention of Davis being carried back only to September, 1866. During the winter of 1861-2, and the spring of 1862, Powers was selling, at Madison, grain drills, with iron drag bars. During the season of 1862, noticing the working of drills in the field, he conceived the idea that the shoes could be put into single and double ranks by a more easy method than that then used. He worked out a plan and made a model of it and applied for a patent, November 10, 1862. The patent was ordered to issue December 6, 1862, but was never issued. The reason is not stated. The specification filed states that the "invention consists of a device to enable the shovels or plows of a drill to be set in single or double rows or ranks, with greater ease and facility than hitherto." The method [described and shown in the drawings is to have a cross row of stationary shovels; and a cross row of other [250] shovels, attached to a cross bar which is arm being held in position, if desired, by any of ranged, at each end of it, so as to slide to the the usual mechanical devices for that purpose." extent of eight inches to and fro, in a groove. In the original specification m is called a "rack Thus, two rows may be made, or the sliding bar," because it is pivoted at one end to the cross bar may be set at a point where all the lower end of the lever H, and has on its other shovels will be in a line, and one row be formed. end a rack taking into a pinion on the end of The movable cross bar is moved by hand and the crank shaft. But, in the reissue, m is called secured, when set by bolts. The claim covers "a rack bar or connecting rod." Again, in the "the method of double and single ranking the reissue, the reference to the lever H, as condrill teeth, by the adjustment of the sliding nected with and working the chain to be used cross bar A, to which are attached the alternate with the sheave or wheel, in the second sug drill teeth or shovels, to different positions be- gested alternative means of shifting, is erased, tween the side pieces of the frame." The de- so as not to make the use of the lever H neces scription states that "by this device, double or sary. Before these changes, the defendant's single ranking can be effected in a moment, in- machine, which has no lever and no rotating stead of the more tedious process of other sim- crank shaft, would not have been within the ilar machines," and that "double and single scope of the original claims, but, if the rack ranking is a highly important feature in a drill, bar were to become a connecting rod, it was to adapt it to different soils and circumstances." thought it might cover the rod in the defendPowers put this shifting arrangement "on to ant's machine. Claim 3 of the reissue was two or may be three drills" which he had on framed on this view, of shifting by a rod alone, hand. He testifies to the use of two of them while claim 1 is made so broad as to seem to and says they worked perfectly, so far as claim shifting by any means, by a single movechanging the rank of the drill was concerned. ment. This was a completed invention. The idea of changing the relative positions of the shoes by having one row of them stationary and moving the other, which is the idea developed in the defendant's machine, was fully embodied in Powers' machine. It had no lever and rod [2511 to do the work of the hand in moving the sliding cross bar, and that cross bar was held in position, when set, by bolts. In view of this invention of Powers, we are of opinion that the invention of the Davis patent must be limited, so far as the shifting apparatus is concerned, to the special arrangement of the rotating crank shaft described, and shown in the drawings. The words "substantially as described," found in each of the first two claims of the original patent, properly confined those claims to the shifting mechanism described. If claim 1 of the reissued is given a construction which includes any arrangement for shifting As to cims 4, 5 and 6, of the reissue, the shifting mechanism of the patent, with its rotating crank shaft, must, in view of the Pow ers invention, be considered as an element in each claim; and that mechanism is not used by the defendants. It follows, from these views, that the decree of the Circuit Court must be reversed and the case remanded, with a direction to dismiss the bill, with costs. under. It is not an offense, under section 12 of the Act of March 1, 1879, for one merely to have in his pos used, or which purports to have been used upon a session a canceled stamp, or a stamp which has been package of imported liquors, unless it has been designedly removed by human agency, without defacing or destroying it at the time. not substantially using a rotating crank shaft, Construction of Internal Revenue Act-offense In view of the rulings of this court on the subject of reissued patents, made since the decision in this case was made by the court below, in May, 1881, this case must be considered in view of the fact that the new matter introduced into the specification of the reissue was put in for the purpose of reaching machines which the claims of the original patent would not reach, and of laying a foundation for claims 1 and 3 of the reissue. The inventor and patentee, Davis, distinctly says this, in his testimony. The principal interpolation is in these words: "The rack bar or connecting rod m may be used for this purpose, and thereby the shoes or hoes may be shifted from a straight to a zigzag line, or vice versa, said connecting bar Submitted Dec. 11, 1885. Decided Jan. 11, 1886 [No. 844.] N a certificate of division in opinion between States for the Southern District of New York Statement of the case by Mr. Justice Mat thews: The defendant was indicted in the Circui Court of the United States for the Souther District of New York for an alleged offense se out in the first count of the indictment, th other three being substantially similar, as fol lows: "The jurors of the United States of Americ within and for the district and circuit aforesaid on their oaths, present that Morris Spiegel, la of the City and County of New York, in ti district and circuit aforesaid, yeoman, heret fore, to wit: on the eighteenth day of April, the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, at the Southern District of New York, and within the jurisdiction of this court, did feloniously, knowingly and fraudulently have in his possession a certain United States stamp of the kind and description provided and required by law to be affixed to packages containing distilled spirits imported into the United States in packages, the said stamp being then and there in form as prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and numbered in figures as follows: 350,460,' a more particular description of which said stamp is to the jurors as yet unknown, which said stamp had been heretofore removed from a certain package which had contained imported spirits, to wit: brandy, and which said stamp had not been defaced and destroyed at the time of such removal, then and there against the peace of the United States and their dignity, and contrary to the form of the statute of the said United States in such case made and provided." The indictment is founded upon provisions contained in the Act of March 1, 1879, "to amend the laws relating to internal revenue" (20 Stat. at L. 327, 342), the eleventh section of which provides as follows: "That all distilled spirits, wines and malt liquors, imported in pipes, hogsheads, tierces, barrels, casks or other similar packages shall be first placed in public store or bonded warehouse, and shall not be removed therefrom until the same shall have been inspected, marked and branded by a United States customs gauger, and a stamp affixed to each package, indicating the date and particulars of such inspection; and the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to prescribe the form of, and provide, the requisite stamps, and to make all regulations which he may deem necessary and proper for carrying the foreign requirements into effect." And section 12, so far as relevant, provides: "Every cask or other package from which the stamp for imported liquors required by this Act to be placed thereon shall not be effaced, obliterated or destroyed, on emptying such packare, shall be forfeited, and the same may be seized by any officer of internal revenue wherever found; and all the provisions and penalties of section 3324 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, relating to empty casks or Pages from which the marks, brands or stamps have not been effaced or obliterated, and relating to the removal of stamps from packages, and to having in possession any amps so removed, shall apply to the stamps for imported spirits herein provided for, and to tasks or other packages on which such tamps shall have been used." tion 3324, R. S., referred to in section 12 of the foregoing Act, is in these words: Every person who empties or draws off or to be emptied or drawn off any distilled its from a cask or package bearing any rk, brand or stamp required by law shall, at me of emptying such cask or package, efand obliterate said mark, stamp or brand. E such cask or package from which said Far brand or stamp is not effaced and obyed as herein required shall be forfeited to ited States, and may be seized by any ofof internal revenue wherever found. And every railroad company or other transportation company or person who receives or transports or has in possession with intent to transport or with intent to cause or procure to be transported, any such empty cask or package or any part thereof, having thereon any brand, mark or stamp, required by law to be placed on any cask or package containing distilled spirits, shall forfeit $300 for each such cask or package or any part thereof, so received or transported or had in possession with the intent aforesaid; and every boat, railroad car, cart, dray, wagon or other vehicle, and all horses and other animals used in carrying or transporting the same shall be forfeited to the United States. Every person who fails to efface and obliterate such mark, stamp or brand, at the time of emptying such cask or package, or who receives any such cask or package or any part thereof, with the intent aforesaid, or who transports the same or knowingly aids or assists therein, or who removes any stamp provided by law from any cask or package containing or which had contained distilled spirits, without defacing and destroying the same at the time of such removal, or who aids or assists therein, or who has in his possession any such stamp so removed as aforesaid, or has in his possession any canceled stamp or any stamp which has been used, or which purports to have been used upon any cask or package of distilled spirits, shall be deemed guilty of a felony and shall be fined not less than $500 nor more than $10,000 and imprisoned not less than one year nor more than five years." The case was brought into this court by the following certificate: "At a stated term of the Circuit Court of the United States of America for the Southern District of New York, in the Second Circuit, begun and held at the United States court rooms, in the City of New York, on the third Monday of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, "Present, the Honorable William J. Wallace, the Honorable Charles L. Benedict, Judges. The United States v. Morris Spiegel. "This case coming on to be heard at this term before judgment upon the verdict of guilty, upon a motion in arrest of judgment and also upon a motion for a new trial, before the two judges above mentioned, at such hearing the the following questions occurred: "First. Whether the indictment states an offense created by the laws of the United States. "Second. Whether in a prosecution for hav. ing possession of stamps removed from imported liquors, instituted under the laws of 1879 (chap. 125, § 12), it is necessary for the Government, in addition to proving that the stamps in question had been removed from casks contain. ing imported spirits, also to prove that such stamps had been so removed by some person. "Third. The prosecution on the trial having failed to prove that the stamps named in the indictment were removed by a person, was it or not error for the court to refuse to direct the jury to acquit the defendant on the ground that the prosecution ha not proven an offense under the statute? Fourth. Whether or not the offer on the part of the defense to prove that the stamps [273] |