Hamilton v. Mendes, 1 Black Rep. 276. Mitchell v. Eddie, 1 T. R. 608. In Smith v. Robertson, which was a case of appeal to the House of Lords, 2 Dow. Rep. 474, the Chancellor (Lord Eldon) appeared far from satisfied with some of the latter decisions, particularly Bainbridge v. Neilson, and Ritchie v. Falkner. The case of Smith v. Robertson was this-Insurance on the Ruby, at and from Halifax to Plymouth captured on the voyage-intelligence of the capture-and immediate abandonment; and some steps taken by the underwriters to settle the loss. Intelligence then of the vessel being re-captured, and refusal of the underwriters to settle, except for a partial loss. Held by the Scotch Admiralty Court, and Court of Sessions, that, 1815. upon notice of the abandonment given, and intelligence of GERNON and Another the capture, the transaction was closed, and not subject to The ROYAL be disturbed, upon any event EXCHANGE appearing from subsequent in- Assurance. telligence. The judgment was affirmed in the House of Lords on the ground of the acceptance of the abandonment by the underwriters. By these means steering clear of the principles upon which K. B. had decided, Bainbridge v. Neilson, and Ritchie v. Falkner. Lord Eldon in this case expressed an opinion, that it was a question, notwithstanding all the boasted certainty of the Law of Insurance, whether there was not as much uncertainty in this law as in any other. July 1. A patent is void. 1st. If the specifica tion omit any ingredient, WOOD and Others v. ZIMMER and Others. THE THIS was an issue out of Chancery directed to try whether a patent, bearing date 20th of January 1812, was or was not a valid patent on which, though the 5th of February, 1813. The plaintiff's were assignees of Vanuriel, Zinck, and Co. and the patent in question had been sold by the bankrupts, the pa- before their bankruptcy, to the defendants. not necessary to the compo sition of the thing, for tent is claim ed, is a more expeditious and beneficial mode of producing the ma nufacture; and, being granted, The patent had been granted for a new mode of pro the ma- making verdigrease, to be called British Imperial 2d. If previous Verdigrease. The specification stated it to be to the patent, duced from certain proportions of granulated copthe article has per and oil of vitriol boiled a certain time in a been publicly copper of a particular construction (which was defour months) scribed) and afterwards strained off and mixed with a solution of potash or soda. vended by the pa tentee him. self. The verdigrease so produced was of a brighter green, and superior to the French verdigrease. A chemist gave evidence to the utility and novelty of the invention; and a workman employed by the patentees proved that, by following the directions in the specification, the manufacture might be produced: he added, that he had manufactured it himself. It appeared, however, that Zinck was accustomed clandestinely, and unobserved by his workmen, to put aqua fortis into the boiler, by means of which the copper was dissolved more rapidly. It appeared, likewise, that four months previous to the patent, the bankrupts had sold an article, composed precisely in the same manner as that for which the patent had been obtained, under the name of Dutch Imperial Green. The Solicitor General and Selwyn, for the defendants, made two objections: 1. The specification omits the aqua fortis, which was a material ingredient, and always employed by the bankrupts in manufacturing the verdigrease. 2. The verdigrease, under another name, had been publicly vended by the bankrupts previous to their obtaining this patent. Best, serjeant, for the plaintiffs. 1. The specification is sufficient to make the verdigrease: the aqua fortis was no necessary ingredient. It did not improve the colour, or save expence. It merely produced a more rapid solution of the copper. 2. Though Zinck sold the article before, that is to say, in August, 1811, and the patent was not obtained till January, 1812, he did not thereby forfeit his privilege in the invention. He might still obtain a patent; the discovery is still new ; the invention is still his; and the secret locked in his own breast. Though sold, in a few instances, the property was not rendered common whilst he kept the secret. The secret was not disclosed till the patent was obtained. GIBBS, C. J.-The objections to this patent are -First, The omission of aqua fortis in the specification. Secondly, That the article was not a 1815. WOOD v. ZIMMER. 1815. WOOD v. ZIMMER. new one at the time of the patent; inasmuch as the bankrupts sold it previously. They gave it to the world without a patent, and they cannot afterwards obtain a patent. It is said that this patent makes verdigrease, and is therefore sufficient. The law is not so. A man who applies for a patent, and possesses a mode of carrying on that invention in the most beneficial manner, must disclose the means of producing it in equal perfection, and with as little expence and labour as it costs the inventor himself. The price that he pays for his patent is, that he will enable the public, at the expiration of his privilege, to make it in the same way, and with the same advantages. If any thing which gives an advantageous operation to the thing invented be concealed, the specification is void. Now, though the specification should enable a person to make verdigrease substantially as good without aqua fortis as with it; still, inasmuch as it would be made with more labour by the omission of aqua fortis, it is a prejudicial concealment, and a breach of the terms which the patentee makes with the public. With respect to the second objection, the question is somewhat new. Some things are obvious as soon as they are made public. Of others, the scientific world may possess itself by analysis. Some inventions almost baffle discovery. But to entitle a man to a patent, the invention must be new to the world. The public sale of that, which is afterwards made the subject of a patent, though sold by the inventor only, makes the patent void. It is in evidence that a great quantity was sold in the course of four months before the patent was obtained; and that the bankrupts were in the habit of selling this manufacture. His Lordship left two questions to the Jury:1. Whether aqua fortis was used by the inventor as an ingredient in the verdigrease. 2. Whether the invention was in public sale before the patent. In either case his Lordship thought the patent void. The Jury found both questions in the affirmative.-Verdict for the defendant. Best, serjeants, and Scarlett, for plaintiffs. The Solicitor General, and Selwyn, for defendant. 1815. WOOD v. ZIMMER. [Attornies, Lovel-Oakley.] The subject of patents for new inventions has not been treated with due precision, as a branch of law by itself, in any of our law books. It is only indeed within a few years that they have become so important a part of our commercial machinery, and like a new and peculiar property, have assumed the qualities belonging to their specific nature. In Boulton and Watt v. Bull, 2 H. Black, 463; and in Horn blower and Maberly v. Boul- |