FEDEBAIi BE^pBTEB. �himself was obliged to iuvent a machine before he oould man- ufacture such pii». If, then, he had attempted to monopolize Buch a pipe, he ought not to have been permitted to do soj for he had not made it. His contention, as I have said, is that thie invention is so great and new that it coyers later inventions, and monopolizes the future. But in view of the state of the art, spiral welded tubes being old, and the folded seam in straight tubes or pipes of sheet metal being old, there was no ppportunity for a great original disoovery,; �His claim, therefore, should have been limited, precisely as it is limited in the patent, to the improved method which he has described., , P!e says he bas described spirally-wound tubes of every possible kind, if they are made by locking the .peam continuously in the course of making the pipe. But I find that he hasnot described a Eitchie pipe, nor anything from which a skilled mechanic could make one, and that the Bitchie pipe does not infringe his patent. �Bill dismissed. ���, The Liberty No. 4.* �(Dittriet Court, 8. D. Ohio. May, 1881.) �. Tort— Suit ra Admiralty bt Issurancb Company Against Vessel Causing Losb — Subrogation — Parties. �Certain insurance companies, under a contract with the owner of a cargo, issued to him a policy of Insurance upon the same. The owner of a barge contracted with the owner of the cargo to receive and de- liver the cargo at a port of destination, and, having received the cargo, the barge owner contracted with a tow-boat to have the barge towed. By the negligence aad fault of the tow-boat the cargo was lost. The insurance companies paid the loss and took an assignment of the claims. �Held : (1) Under such circumstancea, the owner of the cargo could maintaln an action against the tow-boat for the loss. �(2) That the insurance companies, by the payment of the loss and assigninent of the rights of the insured, became subrogated to such rightfl. �*Reporlecl by Messrs. Florien Gianqne and J. C. Harper, of the Cincinnati bar. ��� �
