and paid all the taxes during that period upon the [No. 166.] Argued Feb. 6, 1888. Dismissed for want of IN ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United The facts are stated in the opinion. If the tunnel claim of the plaintiff were ex- Richmond Min. Co. v. Rose, 114 U. S. 576 (29:273). Locations are to be governed by the local rules and customs in force at the time of the location. Jackson v. Roby, 109 U. S. 441 (27:990); Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U. S. 352 (28:453). (No counsel appeared for defendants in error and no brief was filed.) Mr. Justice Lamar delivered the opinion of [472] the court: marked the boundaries of their said location "That from the day of said location until tunnel claim above described by location and "That plaintiff and its grantors, for more 'That the said tunnel claim so located em braces many valuable lodes or veins which "That the said tunnel claim was by its loca- This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of "Plaintiff further alleges that on the 21st day of June, 1865, one Joseph, Coley and one George C. Reeves, each being a citizen of the United States, went upon the public domain of the United States, theretofore wholly unoccupied and unclaimed, and located on said day a tunnel and tunnel site at the base of Glacier Mountain, in Snake River mining district, County of Summit, State of Colorado. "That afterwards and on the same day they "Plaintiff further alleges that while it was in the quiet and peaceful possession of said tunnel claim and every part thereof the defendants, wrongfully and without right and without consent of the plaintiff, to wit, on or about the 2d day of July, 1883, entered upon the premises and into said tunnel so run by plaintiff and its grantors on said claim, and wrongfully and unlawfully ousted the plaintiff therefrom, claiming the said tunnel as the War Eagle. "That on or about said last mentioned date the defendants, without right, made a pretended location of a lode claim across said tunnel [474] [475] [480] and within said tunnel claim, and therein wrongfully ousted the plaintiff therefrom, claiming that they had discovered a lode which they called the Tempest lode. "That the defendants have ever since hitherto unlawfully and wrongfully withheld the possession of the said premises and tunnel claim from the plaintiff, to its damage in the sum of $1,000. "Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants: "1. For the recovery of the possession of said Silver Gate tunnel, tunnel site and claim. "2. For the sum of $1,000 damages for the wrongful withholding thereof. "3. For costs of suit.' The demurrer of the defendants rested upon four grounds: "First. That the property sought to be recovered in this action is not described by its legal subdivisions nor by its metes and bounds. "Second. That the lodes alleged to be embraced within the said tunnel site location, and for which a recovery is asked by the said plaintiff, are not mentioned nor described, nor any location of them or any of them alleged. "Third. That said complainant does not show any valid and legal subsisting pre-emption or location of said Silver Gate tunnel site. "Fourth. That the claim of the said plaintiff to a strip of ground 5,000 feet in length by 500 feet in width as a tunnel site is unwarranted and unprecedented and was not at the date of said pretended location nor at any time subsequent thereto authorized by any local, state, or congressional law." The opinion of the court below is not found in the record, and we are not advised by brief or otherwise as to the grounds upon which the court sustained the demurrer. We must, therefore, determine the issues presented in the case by reference to the bill of complaint, and to the causes assigned for demurrer. First. That the property sought to be recovered in this action is not described by its legal subdivisions nor by its metes and bounds. We do not think this ground is tenable. The complaint, after setting forth the location by plaintiff's grantors of the tunnel and tunnel site in Snake River mining district, Summit County, Colorado, at the base of the Glacier Mountain, states that they (said grantors) caused to be made out and recorded in the recorder's office of the county aforesaid a location certificate of said tunnel claim, which said certificate described the location and boundaries of said tunnel claim; that the said tunnel claim was by its locators named the Silver Gate tunnel claim, and is described more fully as follows: "Commencing at the base of said Glacier Mountain east of Bear Creek, and running southeast and parallel with Coley tunnel through said mountain five thousand feet from the mouth or starting point of said tunnel at a stake marked and in or at the mouth of said Silver Gate tunnel, and two hundred and fifty feet northeast and two hundred and fifty feet southwest from said stake or tunnel to its termination." We think this description is sufficiently plain and distinct to enable the sheriff in case of a recovery to execute a writ of possession, or to enable a surveyor to ascertain the exact limits of the location. The strict rule of pleading which formerly required exact accuracy in the description of premises sought to be recovered has, in modern practice, been relaxed, and a general description of the property held to be good. The provisions of state statutes as to the description of the premises by metes and bounds have been held to be only directory, and a description by name where the property is well known is often sufficient. As to the 2d cause of demurrer, we think that, though the lodes alleged to be embraced within the said tunnel site location are not each separately described, the statement in the complaint that all the lodes in the tunnel claim have been worked and mined by the plaintiff and its [481] grantors comprehends every part of the property for the recovery of which the action is brought. With reference to the 3d ground of the demurrer, it is only necessary to say that the complaint alleges that a valid and legal location of said tunnel was made by persons under whom the plaintiff claims, and that the plaintiff held possession of the same for more than five consecutive years prior to the ouster by the defendants, and paid all the taxes during that period legally or otherwise assessed upon said property. This, under the laws of Colorado, would give the plaintiff a right to the premises in dispute superior to any other claim, except that of the government. The 4th ground of demurrer is: "That the claim of the said plaintiff to a strip of ground 5,000 feet in length by 500 feet in width as a tunnel site is unwarranted and unprecedented, and was not at the date of said pretended location nor at any time subsequent thereto authorized by any local, state or congressional law." Under § 2323 U. S. Rev. Stat., the right is given to locate a tunnel 3,000 feet from the face of said tunnel, and the right is also given to the lodes discovered in said tunnel "to the same extent as if discovered from the surface," which is 300 feet on each side of the tunnel. Under the local laws of Colorado the right is given to "250 feet each way from said tunnel on each lode so discovered." 1801, 5, Gen. Laws Col. 627. The objection presented by the demurrer is that the tunnel is 5,000 feet in length, whereas the statute only recognizes a right of 3,000 feet from the mouth thereof, and that this renders the whole claim void. We do not assent to this proposition. The location would be good to the extent of 3,000 feet at least. Richmond Min. Co. v. Rose, 114 U. S. 576, 580 [29: 273, 274]. This would be true had the location been made under the mining laws now in force. It will be observed, however, that this location was made prior to the passage of any general mineral law. It was made in 1865, and the first general statute passed by Congress on the subject is that of July 26, 1866. It is alleged by the plaintiff in error that this location was made in accordance with the local rules and customs of miners in [482] force at the time of the location, and that, therefore, such location was recognized and protected by the general mineral laws of July 26, 1866, 14 Stat. at L. 251, and that of May 10, 1872, 17 Stat. at L. 91. This allegation, however, is denied by the defendants; but as these local rules and customs differ in the several mining districts as to the extent and character of the mine, the question cannot properly be deter-APPEAL from a decree of the Circuit Court mined on demurrer. The Land Department of the Government, and this court also, have always acted upon the rule that all mineral locations were to be governed by the local rules and customs in force at the time of the location, when such location was made prior to the passage of any mineral law by Congress. Jennison v. Kirk, 98 U. S. 453, 457 [25: 240, 242]; Broder v.Natoma Water & Min. Co. 101 U. S. 274, 276 [25:790, 791]; Jackson v. Roby, 109 U. S. 440, 441 [27:990]; Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U. S. 350, 352 [28: 452, 453]. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the cause of action is plainly and fully set forth in the complaint, and that the judgment of the court below cannot be sustained on any ground presented by the record. The judgment of the Circuit Court is there fore reversed, and the cause remanded to that court for such further proceedings as are consistent with this opinion. So ordered. (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 563-572.) Reissued patent for improved hydrants-enlarged claim reissue invalid-original specification -first claim of reissue-laches-claim anticipated. 1. In the specification of the reissued letters patent, No. 6990, granted to Thomas R. Bailey, Jr., for an improvement in hydrants, it is stated and claimed that the casing C is movable, and that sufficient space is left between the upper terminus of the casing and the bead or flange above it to allow the casing to slide loosely up and down. No suggestion of such arrangement or space is found or shown in the specification or drawing of the original patent. This is new matter, introduced into the specification of the reissue, contrary to the express inhibition of section 4916, Revised Statutes. of United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, dismissing a suit for the infringement of reissued letters patent No. 6990 granted March 14, 1876, to Thomas R. Bailey, Jr., for an improvement in hydrants. Affirmed. Reported below in 22 Fed. Rep. 292. Mr. Edward J. Hill, for appellants: It is the specification which governs and the drawings merely illustrate. Hogg v. Emerson, 52 U. S. 11 How. 587, 606 (13:824,833); S. C. 47 U. S. 6 How. 485 (12: This is a claim for a result or effect. 525). Case v. Brown, 69 U. S. 2 Wall. 320 (17:817). The first claim of the reissue is identical with the second claim of the original. Winans v. New York & E. R. R. Co. 62 U. S. 21 How. 88 (16:68); Furbush v. Cook, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 668. The claim is for the hydrant itself constructed and arranged as described. Winans v. Schenectady & T. R. R. Co. 2 Blatchf. 279. The new parts are as distinctly pointed out by means of the words "with," "and with," as if separately numbered. Tuck v. Bramhill, 6 Blatchf. 95; Taylor v. Archer, 8 Blatchf. 318; Silsby v. Foote, 55 U. S. 14 How. 218 (14:394); Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 76 U. S. 9 Wall. 795 (19:568). The record we proved by a sworn copy. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 496; Evanston v. Gunn, 99 U. S. 660 (25:306). The records are received in courts of justice as evidence of the facts stated. Galt v. Galloway, 29 U. S. 4 Pet. 343 (7:880). The original specification was clear enough to be understood by ordinary mechanics. Hogg v. Emerson, 47 U. S. 6 How. 473 (12: 520). The sole question involved, one of fact, was forever settled by the commissioner when he granted the reissue. Did he act erroneously? Then the only remedy was by interference and 2. Claim 1 of the reissue is for an invention not in-guit under section 4915. Did he act corruptly? dicated or suggested in the original patent; namely, Then the remedy was by quo warranto. the independent up-and-down motion of the casing. 3. The reissued patent was invalid, as matter of law, upon a comparison of the original with the re issue. 4. What was suggested in the original specification, or patent office model, is not to be considered as part of the invention intended to have been Covered by the original patent, unless the original specification indicated that the thing thus suggested was embraced in the invention intended to have been secured by the original patent. 5. Held, in the present case, that it cannot be seen, from a comparison of the two patents, that the original specification indicated that what is covered by the first claim of the reissue was intended to have been secured by the original. 6. As the reissue in the present case was not applied for until nearly eight years after the original patent was granted, held, that the reissue was taken with a manifest intention of covering, by an enlarged claim, structures which, in the mean time, had gone into extensive public use, and which were not covered by any claim of the original patent. 7. Held further, that the casing of claim 3 must be construed to be the casing exhibited in the drawing annexed to the original patent; and if such casing is only a casing which has no end play, it is anticipated by letters patent No. 19,206, granted to Race & Matthews January 26, 1858. [No. 203.] Argued April 3, 1888. Decided May 14, 1888. Mowry v. Whitney, 81 U. S. 14 Wall. 439 (20: 859). In case of a mistake under section 4916, no limitation as to the time of granting a reissue is prescribed; it may be done any time during the lifetime of the patent. Wilson v. Rousseau, 45 U. S. 4 How. 646 (11: 1141); Gibson v. Harris, 1 Blatchf. 167; Curt. Patents, $285. The first claim of reissue No. 6990 is a limited combination. Case v. Brown, 69 U. S. 2 Wall. 320 (17:817); Howe v. Morton, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 586; Curt. Patents, § 269; Winans v. Schenectady & T. v. R. R. Co. 2 Blatchf. 279; McCormick v. Seymour, Id. 240; Seymour v. McCormick, 60 Ŭ. S. 19 How. 96 (15:557). Mr. George L. Roberts, for appellees: The commissioner has no jurisdiction to grant a reissued patent for an invention substantially different from that embodied in the original patent. Parker & Whipple Co. v. Yale Clock Co. 123 Whenever a party desires to show that his invention was prior to his application for the patent, he must prove the fact by other sufficient evidence. Wing v. Richardson, 2 Cliff. 449, 450; Dane v. Chicago Mfg. Co. 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 130, 133; Howard v. Christy, 2 Ban. & Ard. 457, 458. The application must fully disclose the in U. S. 87, 98, 99 (31: 100, 105); Giant Powder The law of the original structure must control; and no afterthought can convert the thing into what it was not normally designed to be. Clough v. Barker, 106 U. S. 166, 175, 176 (27: 134, 137); American Bell Tel. Co. v. Dolbear, 17 Fed. Rep. 604, 605. The testimony of a single witness cannot warrant a court of equity in finding for the complainant against the denial of defendant's answer. Tobey v. Leonard, 2 Cliff. 40, 50, 51; Andrews v. Hyde, 3 Cliff. 516, 522; Carpenter v. Providence Wash. Ins. Co. 45 U. S. 4 How. 185, 218 (11: 931, 946); Grant v. Grant, 34 Beav. 623, 627. He who has rights and sleeps upon them justly loses them. Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Co. 104 U. S. 350, 352, 355 (26:783-785). The procurement of such reissue at so late a date, and after years of adverse practice, by others, was unjust, unlawful and fraudulent. Matthews v. Boston Machine Co. 105 U. S. 54, 58 (26:1022, 1023); Bantz v. Frantz, 105 U. S. 160, 165, 166 (26:1013, 1014); Gage v. Herring, 107 U. S. 640, 645 (27: 601, 603); Clements v. Odorless Excavating Apparatus Co. 109 U. S. 641, 649, 650 (27: 1060, 1063); Turner & S. Mfg. Co. v. Dover Stamping Co. 111 U. S. 319, 326, 327 (28:442, 444); Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U. S. 96, 100, 101 (29:350, 351); White v. Dunbar, 119 U. S. 47, 52 (30:303, 305); Newton v. Furst & B. Mfg. Co. Id. 373, 384, 385 (30: 442, 445); Matthews v. Ironclad Mfg. Co. 124 U. S. 347, 351 (31: 477, 479.) The rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus should be applied. The Santissima Trinidad, 20 U. S. 7 Wheat. 283, 339 (5: 454, 468); Union Sugar Refinery V. Matthiesson, 3 Cliff, 639, 654. The conduct of Thomas R. Bailey, Jr., must negative any attempt, at this distance of time, to establish a claim to such invention. Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U. S. 192, 203 (27: 438, 442). There is nothing in regard to which a witness is more likely to be mistaken than in fixing the date at which a transaction long past took place. Willett v. Fister, 85 U. S. 18 Wall. 91, 97 (21: 804, 805); Wing v. Richardson, 2 Cliff. 449, 453; Hawes v. Antisdel, 2 Ban. & Ard. 10, 22; Sinclair v. Backus, 5 Ban. & Ard. 81, 83, 84. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554, 563, 564 (24:1053, 1057); Eagleton Mfg. Co. v. West, B. & C. Mfg. Co. 18 Blatchf. 218, 220, 222. Usually the claim contains the words "as described" or "substantially as described," or words of like import, which are understood as referring back to the specification. Words of such import, if not expressed in the claim, must be implied. Mitchell v. Tilghman, 86 U. S. 19 Wall. 287, 391 (22:125, 185). Mr. Justice Blatchford delivered the opinion of the court: This is a suit in equity, brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, by James Flower, Thomas Flower, and George Flower, against the City of Detroit, the Fire Commission of the City of Detroit, Benjamin Vernon, president thereof, and the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Detroit, for the infringement of reissued letters patent No. 6990, granted March 14, 1876, on an application filed February 17, 1876, to Thomas R. Bailey, Jr., for an "improvement in hydrants," the original patent, No. 75,344, having been granted to said Bailey, March 10, 1868. Among the defenses set up in the answer, it was alleged that new matter, not constituting any substantial part of the alleged invention upon which the original patent was granted, was introduced into the specification of the reissue, and that the reissue is not for the same invention as the original patent, and is void. The specifications and claims of the original and of the reissue are here placed side by side in parallel columns, the parts in each which are not found in the other being in italic. Original. "To all whom it may concern: R. Bailey, Jr., of Lockport, in the County of Niagara, and State of Be it known that I, T. New York,have invented a new and improved hydrant fire plug; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear and thereof, which will enexact description able those skilled in the art to make and use the same, reference being had to the accompanying drawings, forming part of this specification. This invention relates Reissue. "To all whom it may con cern: R. Bailey, Jr., of Lockport, in the County of Niagara, and State of Be it known that I, T. New York, have invented a new and improved hydrant fire plug; and I do hereby declare the following to be a full, clear thereof, which will enand exact description able others skilled in the art to which my invention relates to make and use the same, reference be ing had to the accompanying drawing, which forms a part of this specification. This invention relates to a new and improved to improvements in the fire plugs or hydrants; or hydrants. method of constructing construction of fire plugs and the invention consists in operating a cylinder valve in a suitable case, and in the arrangement and combination of parts [564] [565] A represents the hydrant tube, from which the water is discharged. B is the horizontal section which is connected with the water main,' and which forms the valve chamber. C is a loose casing around the hydrant tube, for protecting the tube from dirt, etc. D is the cylinder valve, which has its seat at its lower end, on elastic or leather packing, secured in a groove, as seen in the drawing at a. E is a rod, having a screw thread on its upper end, by which the valve is operated. Fis a sleeve nut, which engages with the screw on the rod, raising and lowering it as the nut is turned. This nut is turned by a wrench on the head G. The sleeve nut is secured in the cap of the hydrant by a collar, and packing under the hollow cylinder stuffing box H, as seen in the drawing. Jis a yoke, which is attached to the rod E by a set screw, and which is secured in the tube A, and prevented from turning, as it moves up and down, by projecting lugs, as seen in Fig. 2; and it will be seen that the arrangement is such that the rod and valve may be raised and lowered without being rotated. This secures a uniform and perfect bearing of the valve on its seat, the packing a remaining undisturbed. Provision is made for the discharge of the waste water by an orifice beneath the valve D, marked f, which orifice is opened and closed by a valve marked g, as seen in the drawing. h is a wing on the top of this valve. As the cylinder valve D descends the angular flange on its inside strikes the wing h and raises the valve, as seen in the drawing, thus allowing any water which may remain in the hydrant to escape through the orificef and aperture k. It will be thus seen that no water will be left in the hydrant to freeze in cold weather. In the drawing, Figure 1 represents a longitudinal central section of a hydrant according to my invention; Fig. 2, a cross section of the same through lines x x of Fig. 1. My invention consists in the following parts and combinations, as hereinafter specified and claimed, wherein A represents the hydrant tube, from which water is discharged. Bis the horizontal section which is connected with the water main, and which may form the valve chamber. C is a loose movable casing around the hydrant tube, D is the cylinder valve, having its seat at its lower end, upon suitable elastic packing, secured in a groove, as shown at a. E is a rod, having a screw thread on its upper end, by which the valve is operated. F is a sleeve nut engaged with the screw nut on the rod E, lifting and lowering said rod as the nut is turned one way or another. This nut is turned by a wrench or crank, or other suitable device on the head G. The sleeve nut is screwed in the cap of the hydrant by a collar, and packing under the hollow cylinder stuffing box H. Jis a yoke, which is attached to the rod E by a set screw, or its equivalent, and it is screwed in the tube A, and prevented from turning, as it moves up and down, by projecting lugs, as shown in detail at Fig. 2. It will be noticed that the arrangement is such that the rod and valve may be raised and lowered without being rotated, thus securing a uniform and perfect bearing of the valve on its seat, the packing a remaining undisturbed. Provision is made for the discharge of the waste water by an orifice f, beneath the valve D, which orifice is opened and closed by a valve g. A wing his provided upon the top of this valve. As the cylinder valve D descends, the angular flange on its inside, striking the wing h, raises the valve, as shown in the drawing, and allows any water which may remain in the hydrant to escape down through the orifice f and aperture K, thus preventing any retention of water above the freezing level. The tube A' is secured to the horizontal section B by a ring nut, m, which U. S., Book 32. The tube A is secured to the horizontal section Bby a ring nut m, which 127 U. S. contains recesses for P represents the dis- 12 Having thus described my invention, I claim as new and desire to secure by letters patent: 1. A hydrant or water plug, constructed substantially as shown and described,-that is to say, with the parts A and B connected together, as shown, contains recesses for packing rings around the valve, as shown at n. Packing about the valve is also secured by another ring nut o, and also under the end of the tube A, as shown in the drawings. represents the discharge pipe, with a screw for the attachment of the hose, and a cap piece for covering the pipe when the hydrant is not in use. It will be observed that the casing C loosely rests upon the main B, or upon a branch projecting upward from the same. This casing extends up ward, enveloping the main portion the water pipe A, at least that portion which is subterranean. Said casing extends upwards and fits loosely about the plug or hydrant at the portion A'. Above the upper terminus of the casing C is provided the bead a upon the hydrant proper. Sufficient space is left between the bea a and the upper terminus of the casing C to permit of sufficient up-anddown play of the said casing C, for the purpose which will hereafter more fully appear. This distance between the bead and casing may be adjusted to any desired distance, thus lengthening or shortening it, by means of its screw attachment at its base. The main function of the casing C is to prevent derangement of parts during cold weather by the ground alternately freezing and thawing around the hydrant or plug. This pro cess of freezing causes the surrounding earth, by its expansion, to lift or upheave, and thus be liable to derange the hydrant or plug. This upheaval or movement is received by the casing C, which, by its capability of sliding loosely up and down, will accommodate the upheaval of the earth above mentioned, without any liability to derange the plug or hydrant. This is the chief function of the casing C, although it likewise serves the purpose of protection to the water pipe A. What I claim is: [568] 1. In combination [569] with a hydrant or fire plug, a detached and sur rounding casing C, said casing adapted to have an independent up-anddown motion sufficient to receive the entire movement imparted by the upheaval of the surrounding earth by freezing, without derangement or disturbance of 177 |