DETROIT LUBRICATOR MANUf'g CO. V. EBKCHAKD. 297 �ber a passage extending downward into a glass indicator delivered the drops of condensed water against the side of the glass indicator, constituting a visible feed, The use of the metallic oil cup instead of one made of glass became necessary, particularly upon locomo- tives, as experience had shown that glass is liable to be broken by the motion of the machinery; but that rendered equally necessary the use of the glass indicator, so that it might be open to observation what was the condition of the lubricator. This undoubtedly led to the improvement patented by Clark, March 6, 1877, and to that of Parshall, May 22, 1877. Comparing their patents with one another, remem- bering that they are each for a particular and specifically described combination of several parts, no oneof which is separately claimed as new, I cannot say that they are identical, or that either of the prier ones covers that olaim in controversy in this suit, as set forth in that of the complainant. �It is further insisted by the defendants, however, that if not cov- ered by the patent of November 14, 1876, nevertheless the combina- tion now claimed by the complainant was their own invention, and prior to that of Parshall, and that, in truth, Parshall acquired the knowl- edge of it from them surreptitiously, and so obtained bis patent in fraud of their rights. The evidence, in my opinion, does not sustain the charge that Parshall obtained his knowledge of the device he claims to have patented from the defendants, and the assumption that both were original and independent inventors of it seems to me best supported by the proof . The defendants exhibit a drawing made by J. V. Eenchard which bears date August 10, 1876, and which, it is testified by him, was made on that day, and by others, that he showed it to them about that time. This antedates Parshall's appli- cation, but it fails to supersede his patent for the reason that it seems well-established in evidence that Eenchard did not at that time pros- ecute the matter beyond the mere drawing. The drawing seems to exhibit a perfect machine in all its parts, and sufluciently to show the combination forming the subject of the present controversy, particu- larly the metallic oil cup, the siphon tube carrying the condensed water into the glass indicator, and the two chambers, condensing and oil, closely and directly united. Nevertheless, it is clearly proven that the defendants did not, in fact, construct an indicator in this form, and reduce it to actual use, until after it had been successfully acoomplished by Parshall, nor until after the date of bis patent. This mere drawing, therefore, cannot be allowed to have the eiiect of depriving Parshall of his title of being the first and original inventor. ��� �
