MAYNARD V. PAWLING. 713 �■water-sealing device. Of course, it could not then have been intpnded that it should have the yet uninvented water-sealing device of patent No. 188,801' The water-sealing device after- wards put upon the apparatus was not the water-sealing device of either No- 185,640 or No. 188,801; A water-seal- ing device is an essential part of the plaintiff's first claim, which is the only claim alleged to have been infringed. �It is shown that nothing was done towards putting any water-sealing device into the apparatus before this suit was brought; that there was no prior agreement or understaiid- ing that the machine should be put up with a water-sealed communication, or with the particular construction of dis- charge pipes which were af terwards applied to the machine ; and that it was not absolutely necessary that the discharge pipe should be so cqnstructed as to be water sealed. I do not think the case is brought within the class of cases where the seller of parts of a patented combination is liable for in- fringement if there be a concert of action, proved or legally inferable, between him and others who supply other parts necessary to ths complete combination. It is not shown that the defendants intended to water seal the apparatus, or that it should be water sealed. Thia might have been shown, as a fact, but it was not shown. It appears that the apparatus, after being water sealed after this suit was brought, was sub- sequently altered so as to be used without a water seal. Hence the use of a water seal was not a necessary incident to the apparatus, so as to lead to the conclusion that the con- struction and sale of the machine necessarily involved th© use of a water seal. This case, therefore, does not fall within the pi'inciple of Wallace v. Holmes, 9 Blatchf. 65, and Tarrell V. Spaeth, 8 0. G. 986. �The result is that the bill must be dismîssed. ����
