220 statp: ijoari) of agkiculture. 



closing from an open position by swinging around iti a line with the gate-posts and 

 sliding to a closed state, substantially as siiown and described. Second, the placing 

 of the gate-posts C D C D' in such a relative position with each othei, and con- 

 structing and hanging the gate between theni as to admit of the opening and closing 

 of the gate, substantially as herein set forth." 



In the reissue there are two claims independent of each other, and an 

 infringement on either claim or both claims may be prosecuted. The first is 

 given Avithout reference to a figure, and covers all cases of gates tiiat open by 

 sliding back to a balanced position and then swinging open. The second refers 

 to the peculiar arrangement of posts shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 (a mistake in 

 the second claim makes it read posts C D C D', for posts U U (J' D' — this is 

 not material however.) 



As there could be no doubt regarding the question of infringement on this 

 patent, the defenders next undertook to collect testimony of its use earlier than 

 1859. In this they were very successful, and were able to prove, in at least 

 fifty well authenticated cases, that the slide gate had been in use for more 

 than twenty years. The persons owning this patent pushed two suits to a con- 

 clusion against infringers. The defendants carried tlie day, however, by 

 clearly proving that A. C. Teel was not the inventor of the slide gate, and that 

 he had no right to the patent which had been granted him. 



These cases in regard to the slide gate, although resulting fortunately for 

 the farn)ers, were sufficient to show them clearly the danger to which they 

 were subjected. 



THE DRIVE WELL. 



The case of the patent on the drive well has been tested in neighboring 

 States several times. In every case the court has decided in favor of the pat- 

 entees. There are two valid patents on the drive well — Green's patent, given 

 in 1868, which covers the well itself, and Suggett's patent, given in 18G4, 

 ■which covers the method of driving the well. 



The history of the patents in regard to the drive well may be concisely stated 

 as follows : the first patent was given March 29, 1864, and is described as fol- 

 lows in the patent office report: 



" No. 42.120.— James Suggett, Courtland. N. Y. Pump for Bored Wells. March 29, 

 1864. This invention consists in the emploj'ment of a perforated pipe, having a ta- 

 pering point at its lower end. A stutllng of cotton, tow, or other material which is 

 easily extracted, serves to exclude the earth during the descent of the h(diow rod. 

 It may be combined with any suitable pump. Claim. The perforated jiipc, with the 

 pointed end, constructed as a drill and united with a pump, all substantial!}' as shown." 



This patent evidently covers the method of constructing a drive well, when 

 a perforated pipe, with a pointed end is used as a drill and connected with a 

 pump. 



Oct. 24, 1865, a second patent was granted to Lieut. B. Mudge. This pat- 

 ent is described as follows : 



"No. 50,614.— Byron Mudge, Courtlandville, N. Y. Mode of sinking wells. 

 24, 1S65. 'J'his invention consists in driving a pointed rod of iron or steel perpen"'*^" 

 ularly into the giound, withdrawing the rod, and inserting a pipe of nearly equal 

 size in its place, which completes the well. Claim. The process or mode of con- 

 structing or sinking wells when no ruck is to be drilled, viz.: driving a rod down to 

 and into the water underground, withdrawing it and inserting a pipe into its 

 place, substantially as described." 



Mudge having constructed a drive well under tlie direction of Col. N". W. 

 Greene, in 1861., considered himself the oiiginal inventor. Consequently he 

 surrendered his patent, and demanded a reisaue which should cover ail that 

 had been granted Suggett. Meanwhile Col. Green put forward his claims as 



