Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/919

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

WASHEURN <fe MOEN MANDF'G 00. V. HAISH. 905 �brought before the world, bas becomo known to the public, and been put in form to be useful, that people start up in various places and declare that they invented the same thing before. The cotton-gin and the ethef discovery are illustra- tions in point; and others of similar charaoter might be added indefmitely. These pretended prier inventors had thought of such a thing ; that they had the conception of such a thing, perhaps ; but they never carried it to the extent of making it of practical utility, so that the world could obtain possession of it. But -when they find that another bas com- pleted that which they had begun, they are astonished that they did not see, think they naust have seen ail that is neces- sary, and elaim that they have invented it. After having seen what has been done, the mind is very apt to blend the subsequent information with prior recollections, and confuse them together. Prophecy after the event is easy prophecy. I think that this is one of the cases in which several of the witnesses have been led into the illusion of believing that they knew before what they have learned or been taught." �The same learned judge, in Hayden v. SuJ/olk Manuf'g Co. 4 Fisher, 103, said : " Where an invention of a useful machine, or structure or improvement in any machine, is shown to have been made, and it is sought to be invalidated by an old machine made years ago, the ]ury should examine the testi- mony and the evidence with care and caution, so as to be satisfied that that which is said to bave existed was actually and substantially the same. • * * The rule of law is a, reasonable one; at ail events it is a rule of law that a party that sets up such an old instrument that bas passed away has upon him the burden of satisfying the jury, upon a pre- ponderance of evidence, that it is substantially the same as what has taken place before they will set aside the patent. '" �So, in Goodyear v. Day, 2 Wall. Jr. 283, Mr. Justice Grier says: "It is usually the case, where any valuable discovery is made, or any new machine of great utility has been in- vented, that the attention of the public has been turned to the subject previously, and that many persons hàve been. making researches and experirhents. * • • Mtoy ex- ����