rum nnnunmrm. 47
ln applying the Powder Works Oase to the facts. detailed in Yale
Lock Mamfg Oo. v. Scovill Manuf’g Oo. 18 Blatchf. G. C. 248, [S.
C. 3 Frm. Bur. 288,] this court used this language, which is cited by
the plaintiffs with commendation, as applicable to the present case:
*• If the patentee has made a palpable mistake, and has limited his real in-
vention, by a mistatcment of its principles, so that he is about to lose the fruit ,
of his labor, he should be permitted to restate, and, if need be. enlarge, his spec-
ilication so as to include the same invention which was plainly the subject
of, but was not fully secured by, the original patent, although literally the en-
larged invention is one which he did not apply for in his original specification,
because that specification, by a mistatement of his actual invention, applied
for a narrower patent than he was entitled to have.'?
The facts in the Yale Lock Case were very different from those in
this case. It might as well be said that the Oopernican system was
a mere restatement of the principles which had been misstated in the
Ptolemaic system, as that this reissue was a restatement and enlarge-
ment of the principles of the invention which was the subject of the
original patent. V . ,
I am not unmindful of the strong equitiesin favor of the plaintiffs
V growing out of the error of the inventor in regard to the nature of his
invention, and of the fact that Mr. Lane availed himself of the error
in a manner and by an expedition which indicated that he was more
intent upon commercial success than upon nice observance of the
golden rule; but I am clearly of opinion that the statute in regard to r
reissues forbids such a radical transformation of a patent as was at-
tempted in this reissue. _ d
The bill is dismissed. ' _ , » L
_ r Tum Bnmxnnrm. _ -
BALL v. Wmsnow. (Two Cases.)
_ ' (Urrcuiz Oourt, D. Masaachksetts. September V25, 1883.) i Z
Anumamv PRACTICE—AFFIRMANCE or Dncnnn on Drsrnrcr COURT—A.LLOW-
- mon or- Inrnnmsr. , . r a
Ordinarily, when an arirniralty. decree of the district court, which includes
interest, is afflrmediby the circuit court, interest will be allowed on thefull
amount of the decree below. V
In Admiralty. I A . ~ 1 » V
Frank Goodwin, for Ball.
V Frederick Dodge, for Winslow. I
Lowmm., J. Counsel have argued the question whether interest
should be allowed on the full amount of the decree below, which was
made upon the report of the commissioner, which included interest.