
    Raymond v. Singer Manuf’g Co. and others.
    
      (Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.
    
    April 18, 1882.)
    
    Patent — Spring Catch — Anticipation.
    Where the evidence shows that the claim was an invention anticipated, the hill alleging the infringement will be dismissed.
    In Equity.
    
      T. W. Clarke, for complainant.
    
      Browne, Holmes & Browne, for defendants.
   Lowell, C. J.

The plaintiff is the owner of patent No. 101,140, granted to Lawyer & Gasten, March 22, 1870, for an improvement in sewing machines, and alleges an infringement by the defendants of the second claim of the patent, relating to a spring catch for keeping the shuttle in place.

After careful and repeated examinations of the evidence, I think the defendants have proved that this part of the invention was-anticipated by James Bolton, in 1867, as alleged in the amended answer.

Bill dismissed.  