TUCKEB V. SABGENT. 299 �of glasB oil cups is avoided by the substitution of metal, while the important feature of the visible feed is retained, by means of a glass indicator and the dropping of the condensed water into the oil cup through the indicator, by the means of a tube shaped like an inverted syphon, whereby the passage of the oil into the condenser is made impracticable, thus forcing it into the engine it is needed to lubri- cate. And this is effected by an arrangement of the parts by which the condenser and the oil cup aire brought into immediate contact, so that the water seal tube may conduct the condensed water into the body of the oil, and thence upwards again, so as to discharge directly into the indicator. If there be no new resuit here, at least I am oonstrained to say that I feel bound to aceept the decision of the experts of the patent-office, as certified in their recommending the Parshall combination for a patent, and of the office itself in granting it, as evidence, not otherwise overthrown, that the resuit is attained in a better mode than was before known. This evidence is corroborated by the actions of the defendants themselves, who, abandoning their lubricator, made before that in accordance with the specifications of their own patent, after the issue of the- patent to Parshall, adopted in lieu of it the combination secured by it to him. I find, accordingly, that the complainant is entitled to a deeree as prayed for. Decreed accordingly. ���/ ���TuCKEE V, Saroent & Co. �{Gireuit Court, D. Conneetieut. September 2, 1881.) �1. Letterb Patent— Tuckbr Bhokzb. �Tucker bronze is made by cleanijig a piece of cast-iron, of the desired pattern, from the sand and scale which adheres to it when it cornes from the mould, then coating it with a very thin film of oil, and, flnally, subjecting it to a high degree of heat one or more times, whereby varions colors may be produced upon the surface of the iron and rendered pei-manent. Eeld, that bright cast iron oxidized, and covered with a coat of oxidized oil, vamish, or size, may be, but is not necessarily, Tucker bronze; and that, in the present case, there is no infringement. �Eliku G. Loomis and James E. Maynadier, for plaintiff. �Charles E. Mitchell and John S, Beaeh, for defendant. �Shipman, D. J. This is a bill in equity based upon the alleged infringement of reissued letters patent Nos. 2,355 and 2,356, dated September 11, 1866, and granted to the Tucker Manufacturing Com- pany as assignee of Hiram Tucker, and now owned by the plaintifF, ��� �
