Syllabus. cation, and that the assured, by accepting it, covenanted that the application contained a just, full, and true statement of all the facts and circumstances in regard to the condition, situation, value, and risk of the property insured, and that if any fact or circumstance were not fairly represented, the policy should be void. Action having been brought upon the policy, the company denied its liability on the ground that the application had represented that there was no such mortgage, when in fact, one existed. The court held that the assured, by accepting the policy, was bound by its covenants, and that he ratified the application. We are It is unnecessary to pursue the subject further. clear that the court below erred, both in refusing the instructions asked and in its charge to the jury in the particulars mentioned. Its judgment must, therefore, be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. YALE LOCK MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. SARGENT. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Argued March 12, 15, 1886.-Decided April 5, 188 Claim 1 of reissued letters patent No. 4696, granted to James Sargent, January 2, 1872, for an "improvement in locks,” on an application filed September 25, 1871, the original patent, No. 57,574, having been granted to him August 28, 1866, namely, "1. In a combination lock for safe or vault doors, a bolt, I, which turns on a pivot or bearing, when said bolt, 1, is used in a lock having no ordinary sliding lock-bolt, and in connection with the separate bolt-work of the door, and so arranged as to receive the pressure of the said bolt-work without transmitting it to the wheels or other equivalent works of the lock," is not invalid, as being an unlawful expansion of claim 1 of the original patent, namely, "1. The rotating tumbler I, when separated and isolated in action from the permutation wheels, and so arranged that any inward pressure upon the bolt will be exerted upon the bearing of Opinion of the Court. said tumbler, and have no action nor effect upon the said permutation wheels, substantially as and for the purpose herein specified," The invention covered by claim 1 of the reissue defined, and certain prior structures held not to have anticipated it. The defendant's lock held to be an infringement of that claim. The plaintiff granted no licenses under his patent, but sold locks made by himself containing the invention. The defendant sold infringing locks at less prices than the plaintiff, and compelled the plaintiff to lower his prices. As the turning bolt was an essential feature in each of the two locks, and the plaintiff could not sell his patented device unless in a lock, and thus made a profit on the entire lock, and was deprived of that profit by such enforced reduction of prices: Held, that the infringement caused the entire loss of the plaintiff, after allowing a proper sum for any other patented device contained in the defendant's lock and for any other causes which gave to the defendant an advantage in selling his lock. Such loss on the locks sold by the plaintiff, by the reduction of price, was allowed to the plaintiff as damages, in a suit in equity for infringement, although the defendant made no profit. The plaintiff, as legal owner of the patent, was entitled to recover the damages, although he had a partner in making and selling the locks. As the bill alleged infringement of the reissue generally, and the answer set up that the reissue was not for the same invention as the original patent, and one of the claims of the reissue not disclaimed before this suit was brought was invalid, as an unlawful expansion of the original patent, although the claim on which a recovery was allowed was good, this court, the patent naving expired, but there having been no unreasonable delay in filing a disclaimer to the invalid claim, reversed so much of the decree below as awarded costs to the plaintiff, and affirmed it in all other respects, each party to bear his own costs in this court and one half of the expense of printing the record. This was a suit in equity to recover for infringement of a patent. The case in stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. Frederic H. Betts for appellant. Mr. George Ticknor Curtis, and Mr. Edmund Wetmore for appellee. MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court. This is a suit in equity, brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, by James Sargent against the Yale Lock Manufacturing Company, to recover for the infringement of reissued letters patent Opinion of the Court. No. 4696, granted to Sargent, January 2, 1872, for an "improvement in locks," on an application therefor filed September 25, 1871 (the original pate No. 57,574, having been granted to him August 28, 1866). The specification and drawings of the reissue are as follows: "My invention consists in combining with the ordinary combination-wheels, and the other working parts of a combination lock which has no sliding lock-bolt, a bolt turning on a pivot or bearing, which is so isolated or removed from contact with the said wheels as to receive any pressure or strain which may be applied through the separate bolt-work of the safe or vaultdoor, and cut off the communication between the bolt-work of the door and the wheels or fence-lever of the lock, whereby the position of the slots in the wheels can be determined and the lock picked,' as can be done in most cases where the ordinary sliding-bolt is used without some mechanical device to prevent. In the drawings, Figure 1 is an elevation of my improved lock, with the back plate removed; Figs. 2 and 3, an elevation and top view, respectively, of the pivoted bolt, the combination-wheels, the cam, and the lever work that connects them; Fig. 4, a perspective view of the pivoted bolt; Fig. 5, a similar view of the magnet and armatures; Fig. 6, a view showing the manner of applying the spindle and cam to a safe or vault door. A, represents the plate of a safe door, and B, the case of the lock which is applied thereto. C, C, C, are the combinationwheels, and D, the operating spindle. The spindle passes through a hollow stud, a, of the case, and has screwed upon its inner end the cam E, as shown most clearly in Fig. 6. The wheels themselves rest on the stud a. I, is the bolt, turning on a pivot or bearing, q. Its location is such as to rest closely in the rear of the stem, t, of the heavy bolt work of the door, and to hold it out when in one position, but to allow it to retract, to free the bolt-work, when in the other position, said bolt, I, turning on its pivot or bearing to allow this to be done. H is a sliding-bar, which gives motion to the bolt as it is thrown forward or backward, being connected together by cog-teeth p r. The bar slides on studs, n n, by which it keeps Opinion of the Court. its horizontal position. G is a lever pivoted at f, to bar II, and serving to throw the latter back. It has a hook, b, Fig. 2, which engages with the bit, d, of the cam, to draw the bar back. The forward motion is given by the cam striking the end o, of the bar H. L is a magnet of the form shown in Fig. 5, which is suspended on a pivot, i. Its open end rests between armatures hk, which are separated by a brass pendant, 7. The armature h is attached to the end of lever G. When the magnet is in contact with the lower armature, h, the dog, g, will be held away from the wheels; but when raised and brought in contact with the upper armature, k, the lever is released and the dog is then allowed to fall into the notches of the wheels, to release the bolt. The magnet is raised by a roller, c, of the cam, which strikes a bearing, m, of the magnet. In general principle the magnet is the same as that covered by the patent of Sargent and Covert, May 2, 1865; but the construction and arrangement of the magnet and armatures. are much simpler and more effective, and constitute one feature of my present invention. An important feature in my invention is the employment of the bolt I, turning on a pivot or bearing, instead of the slidingbolt heretofore in use. It is isolated, so to speak, from the combination-wheels and the other main working parts of the lock, and, therefore, any strain which is brought to bear upon it by the heavy bolt-work will be expended on the bolt itself, and not upon the wheels. In the old form of lock the slidingbolt extends back so as to connect with or come near to the wheels, and any strain thereon is liable to disarrange the lock works. Another important advantage of the isolation of the bolt is that it increases the difficulty of 'picking,' by being removed from all contact with the wheels. A common mode of picking ordinary locks is to force the bolt back, so as to get a contact with it and the edges of the wheels, by which their position is ascertained. In my lock this cannot occur, as the bolt simply turns on its bearing or pivot, and no back action can bring it or the lever work against the wheels. The bolt may not only be of the circular form shown in the |