references to statutes and decisions which are almost identical with references to be found in former compilations. As contrasted with the extent of the new compilation, the instances cited in the brief of the appellant are not so numerous, and of such character, as to justify the interference of a court of equity. The legislature having determined that the public interests required a new compilation of the laws of the state, and the work having been completed, the court should not interfere by injunction, unless the right to the relief asked is clearly manifest from the evidence. In our judgment, the plaintiff has not made such a case as would justify the interposition of a court of equity by injunction. The order denying the injunction is affirmed.
ELECTRIC CAR CO. OF AMERICA et al. v. NASSAU ELECTRIC R. CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. December 7, 1898.)
No. 98.
Patents—Infringement—Controlling Switch for Electric Motors.
The Condict patent, No. 393,323, for a controlling switch for electric motors, was not anticipated nor affected in its scope by the Paine patent, No. 321,749, for a method of regulating electric lights, and is infringed by a device in which, when a change is made from series to multiple, instead of the resistances being cut in preparatory to the time of changing the connections, they are cut in during the transitional positions which result in a change from series to multiple.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.
On final hearing of the bill in equity of the present complainants against the Hartford & West Hartford Railway Company in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Connecticut a decree was entered by Judge Townsend which declared that claims 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, and 31 of letters patent No. 393,328, dated November 20, 1888, issued to George Herbert Condict for an improvement in switches for electric motors, had been infringed by the defendant’s use of electric car controllers manufactured by the Walker Company, and known in the case as types B1 and B2, and directed an injunction. 87 Fed. 733. In a bill in equity which was thereafter brought by the same complainants against the present defendant in the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of New York, an order was entered by Judge Lacombe which directed a preliminary injunction upon the same claims against the use of four forms of electric car controllers used by the defendant. 89 Fed. 204. This appeal is from that order.
George J. Harding, for appellant.
Frederic H. Betts, for appellees.
Before WALLACE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
SHIPMAN, Circuit Judge. A “controller” is the easily recognized cylinder-shaped electric mechanism of an electric car at the left hand of the motorman, which is operated by a handle which is constantly being swung to and fro, and is the visible means by which the speed of the car is retarded or is promoted. The controller, as a whole, is a device for regulating or controlling the current delivered to an electric motor, and thereby regulating the speed of the car. Before the
