INC. 
 
 aw Book Publishers 
 '1 MAIN STREET 
 BUFFALO 3, N. Y. 
 
 T 
 \%Z6 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 SCHOOL OF LAW 
 LffiRARY
 
 PATENT CASE INDEX: 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 LISTS OF ALL THE CASES INVOLVING 
 PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS 
 
 AS REPORTED IN 
 
 THE STATE AND FEDEIJAL REPORTS, ROBBS AXD FISHER'S 
 
 PATENT CASES, AND THE PATENT OFFICE GAZETTE, 
 
 IP TO THE PRESENT TIME; 
 
 TOOKTIIEU 
 
 WITH A BlUEF SYNOPSIS OF THE LAW POINTS DECIDED, 
 AKUANGEU ALniAIJETldLLY. 
 
 By \V. l\ PREBLE, Jr., 
 
 ATTORNEY AT LAW. 
 
 <U 
 
 BOSTON: 
 LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY. 
 
 1880.
 
 Copyright, 1880, 
 By W. p. Preble, Jr. 
 
 T 
 
 University Prrss: 
 John Wilson and Son, Cambridge.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 I. A List of the Cases involving Patents for In- 
 ventions, ARRANGED ALPHABETICALLY . . Page 3 
 
 II. "An Alphabetical Synopsis of Law Points relating 
 TO Patents for Lvventions, referring to the 
 Cases in the first List 143 
 
 III. A List of the Lwentions on which Suits have 
 
 been decided, with References to the first 
 List 279 
 
 IV. An Alphabetical List of the Defendants in the 
 
 Cases in the first List 305
 
 PART I. 
 
 LIST OF CASES.
 
 PATENT CASE INDEX, 
 
 PART I. 
 LIST OF CASES. 
 
 Adams v. Burke. Coffin-lids. Article sold passes out of 
 monopoly. Infringement, use by purchaser outside of 
 limits of territorial license. 1 Holmes, 40; 4 Fisher, 392; 
 1 Off. Gaz. 282. 
 
 Adams v. Burke. Coffin-lids. Above affirmed. Right to use 
 distinguished from right to make and sell. What sale of 
 patented machine implies. 17 Wall. 453. 
 
 Adams v. £dwards. Fire-proof iron safes. What substan- 
 tially the same means. What invention is. Utility, exten- 
 sive use as evidence. Abandonment, causes of. Patent is 
 prima facie good. Public use for two years. 1 Fisher, 1. 
 
 Adams v. Joliet Manufacturing Co. Corn-sheller. Nov- 
 elty. Technical defects in patents. Infringement, com- 
 bination, change of position of parts. Better work. 12 
 Off. Gaz. 93. 
 
 Adams v. Jones. Door-locks. Abandonment, involuntary 
 delays. Infringement, colorable alteration. 1 Fisher, 527. 
 
 Adams & Westlake Manufacturing Co. v. St. Louis 
 Wire Goods Co. Wire sieve. Infringement, combina- 
 tion, particular patent. 12 Off. Gaz. 940. 
 
 Adamson v. Dedrick. Soles for boots and shoes. Particular 
 patent held invalid. 2 Off. Gaz. 523.
 
 4 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Adjustable Window Screen Co. v. Boughton. AVindow- 
 screen. Particular patent, too broad claims. 31 Leg. Int. 254. 
 
 Agawam Company v. Jordan. Wool machine. Infringe- 
 ment, burden of proof. Original inventor. Fraud as a de- 
 fence not admissible under that of want of novelty. Who 
 is entitled to a patent. Suggestions. Allegation of public 
 use, notice required of places, &c. Abandonment. Re- 
 issue not for same invention. 7 Wall. 583. 
 
 Aiken v. Bemis. Saw-set. Motion for new trial, excessive 
 damages, against weight of evidence, newly discovered 
 evidence, costs, nonsuit for a variance. Right to cross- 
 examine. 3 W. & M. 348; 2 Robb, 644. 
 
 Aiken v. Dolan. Knitting-needles. Conditional assignments. 
 Title to sue. Patentability in general. Extensions, fair 
 profit. Disclaimer. Infringement, substantial equivalents. 
 3 Fisher, 197. 
 
 Aiken v. Manchester Print Works. Knitting-needles. 
 Sale gives right to use and repair, but not to make new 
 ones. When State court is proper tribunal. 2 Cliff. 435. 
 
 Albright v. Celluloid Harness Trimming Co. Harness. 
 Abandoned experiments. Reissue not for same invention. 
 Infringement, experimental making and use. 12 Off. Gaz. 
 227. 
 
 Alden v. Dewey. Scythe-snaths. Evidence, defendant's ma- 
 chine better. Excessive damages. Effect of oath of in- 
 ventor. 1 Story, 336; 2 Robb, 17. 
 
 Allen V. Blunt. Fire-arms. Reissue jonma /arte right. Ex- 
 perts as witnesses. 3 Story, 742; 2 Robb, 288. 
 
 Allen v. Blunt. Fire-arms. Motion for new trial, evidence, 
 excessive damages. Reissue presumed legal. What consti- 
 tutes /rs< invention. 2 W. & M. 121; 2 Robb, 530. 
 
 Allen v. Blunt. Fire-arms. New trial. Service of suhpoena. 
 Jurisdiction, not citizenship but subject-matter. 1 Blatch. 
 480. 
 
 Allen v. City of Brooklyn. Seats for public buildings. 
 City not liable for use of patented article by its school com- 
 mittee. 4 Fisher, 598.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 5 
 
 Allex v. Hunter. Metallic plates. Patent is prima facie 
 evidence. Patents void on their face for uncertainty. Real 
 relation of inventors to the public. Construction of patents. 
 6 McLean, 303. 
 
 Allen v. Sprague. Fire-arms. Preliminary injunction, prior 
 decisions at law. lleissue not for same invention. 1 
 Blatch. 567. 
 
 American Cotton Tie Co. v. Simons. Bale ties. Sale of 
 patented article takes it out of the monopoly of the patent, 
 13 Off. Gaz. 967. 
 
 American Diamond Rock Boring Co. v. Sullivan Com- 
 pany. Rock-drill. Infringement, colorable alteration. 
 Reissue not for same invention. Want of novelty. Pre- 
 liminary injunctions. 14 Blatch. 119. 
 
 American Hide and Leather Splitting and Dressing 
 Machine Co. v. American Tool and Machine Co. 
 Hides and leather. Public use for two years. Abandon- 
 ment. Notice of defense. Instructions to juries. 1 Holmes, 
 503 ; 4 Fisher, 284. 
 
 American Manufacturing Co. v. Lane. Umbrellas. In- 
 fringement, particular patent. 14 Blatch. 438; 15 Off. Gaz. 
 421. 
 
 American Middlings Purifier Co. v. Atlantic Middlings 
 Co. Flour process. Preliminary injunctions. Previous 
 decisions. Invalidity of patent. Infringement. 4 Dillon, 
 100. 
 
 American Middlings Purifier Co. v. Atlantic Middlings 
 Co. Flour. Reissue not for same invention. 15 Off. Gaz. 
 467. 
 
 American Middlings Purifier Co. v. Christian. Flour 
 process. Preliminary injunctions. Hearing on bill and 
 affidavits. Previous decisions ou patent. 4 Dillon, 448. 
 
 American Nicolson Pavement Co. v. City of Elizabeth. 
 Wood pavement. Preliminary injunction, previous judg- 
 ments. Original inventor. Infringement, colorable al- 
 teration. 4 Fisher, 189.
 
 b PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 American Nicolson Pavement Co. v. City of Elizabeth. 
 Wood pavement. Original inventor. Want of novelty. 
 Reissue not for same invention. Public use. Infringement, 
 combination, additions. 6 Fisher, 424; 3 Off. Gaz. 522. 
 
 American Nicolson Pavement Co. v. City of Elizabeth. 
 Wood pavement. Exceptions to Master's report. Im- 
 provements by defendant charged and allowed. License 
 fee. 6 Off. Gaz. 764. 
 
 American Nicolson Pavement Co. v. Hatch. Wood pave- 
 ment. Infringement, combination of two things not by one 
 and a third. 3 Fisher, 432. 
 
 American Nicolson Pavement Co. v. Jenkins. Wood pave- 
 ment. Assignment of patent, what expression " term for 
 ■which are or may be granted" carries. 14 Wall. 452; 
 5 Fisher, 491; 1 Off. Gaz. 465. 
 
 American Pin Co. v. Oakville Co. Pins. Infringement, 
 different means of getting same result. 3 Blatch. 190. 
 
 American Saddle Co. v. Hogg. Saddle-pad. Notice of 
 defense. Prior patent not mentioned in answer, only 
 admitted to show state of art. 1 Holmes, 133; 5 Fisher, 
 353; 2 Off. Gaz. 59. 
 
 American Saddle Co. v. Hogg. Saddle-pad. Motion for re- 
 hearing. Agreement of counsel to admit evidence not set 
 up in answer. 1 Holmes, 177; 6 Fisher, 67; 2 Off. Gaz. 
 595. 
 
 American Shoe Tip Co. v. National Shoe Toe Protector 
 Co. Boots and shoes. Preliminary injunction, long acqui- 
 escence, previous decisions. Disclaimer by mistake. In- 
 fringement. 11 Off. Gaz. 740. 
 
 American Whip Co. v. Lombard. Gage lathe. Original 
 inventor, patent prima facie evidence. Infringement, com- 
 bination, substantial equivalents. 14 Off. Gaz. 900. 
 
 American Wood Paper Co. v. Fibre Disintegrating Co. 
 Wood pulp. Original inventor. Infringement, lower 
 pressure in process. 6 Blatch. 27; 3 Fisher, 362. 
 
 American Wood Paper Co. v. Fibre Disintegrating Co. 
 (See Wood Paper Patent.)
 
 LIST OF CASES. 7 
 
 American Wood Paper Co. v. Glen Falls Paper Co. 
 Wood pulp. Extension of patents is judicial act, and not 
 to be impeached collaterally. 8 Blatch. 513; 4 Fisher, 324. 
 
 American Wood Paper Co. v. Glen Falls Paper Co. 
 Wood pulp. Rehearing. Statute for filling vacancies. 
 8 Blatch. 518; 4 Fisher, 561. 
 
 American Wood Paper Co. v. Heft. Wood pulp. Invalid 
 reissues. Infringement, lower pressure in process. 3 
 Fisher, 316. 
 
 American Wood Paper Co. v. Heft. Wood pulp. Appeal 
 dismissed, plaintiffs owning both sides of the litigation. 
 8 Wall. 333. 
 
 Ames v. Howard. Paper. Liberal construction of patents. 
 New trial, surprise, evidence. 1 Sumner, 482; I Robb, 
 689. 
 
 Andrews v. Carman. Wells. Particular patent, utility. 
 Patentability. Construction of patents. Original inventor. 
 Prior use. Abandonment. 13 Blatch. 307; 9 Off. Gaz. 
 1011. 
 
 Andrews v. Denslow. Wells. Motion to set aside a decree 
 taken pro confesso regularly obtained. Denied. 14 Blatch. 
 182. 
 
 Andrews V. Spear. Wells. Preliminary injunction. 4 Dillon, 
 472. 
 
 Andrews v. Wright. Wells. Reissue not for same inven- 
 tion. Want of novelty. Patentability. 13 Off. Gaz. 969. 
 
 Annunciator Co. (See United States Annunciator Co.) 
 
 Anthony v. Carroll. Paper pulp. Demurrer. Statute of 
 Limitations. 9 Off. Gaz. 199. 
 
 Appleton I'. Bacon. Paper folding. Bill for surrender of a 
 patent issued to wrong man. 2 Black, 699. 
 
 Arkell v. Hurd Paper Bag Co. Paper bags. Infringement, 
 particular patent. 7 Blatch. 475. 
 
 Armstrong v. Hanlenbeck. Cutlery polisher. Assignments 
 and licenses distinguished. 3 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 43.
 
 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Asbestos Felting Co. v. United States and Foreign Sal- 
 amander Felting Co. Felting. Senior and junior pat- 
 ents. Injunctions against suits under patents not yet 
 declared invalid. 13 Blatch. 453; 10 Off. Gaz. 828. 
 
 AsHCROFT V. Boston and Lowell Railroad. Steam safety- 
 valves. Reissue not for same invention. Original inventor. 
 Infringement. 1 Holmes, 366; 5 Off. Gaz. 725. 
 
 Ashcroft v. Boston and Lowell Railroad. Steam safety- 
 valves. Infringement, particular patent. Above affirmed. 
 7 Otto, 189; 13 Off. Gaz. 865. 
 
 Ashcroft v. Cutter. Pencils. Original inventor, particular 
 patent. 6 Blatch. 511. 
 
 Ashcroft v. Rollings. Lamps. Want of novelty. Infringe- 
 ment, particular patent. 11 Off. Gaz. 879. 
 
 Ashcroft v. Walworth. Pipe tongs. Infringement. Con- 
 veyance under insolvent law of Massachusetts. 1 Holmes, 
 152; 5 Fisher, 528; 2 Off. Gaz. 546. 
 
 Atlantic Giant Poavder Co. v. California Powder 
 Works. Explosives. Reissues not for same inventions. 
 3 Sawyer, 448. 
 
 Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. California Powder 
 Works. Explosives. Reissue must be for same inven- 
 tion. Power of commissioner. Demurrers to whole bill 
 and to part. 8 Otto, 126. 15 Off. Gaz. 289. 
 
 Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Goodyear. Explosives. 
 Infringement, combination. Preliminary injunction, same 
 question pending in other circuits. 13 Off. Gaz. 45. 
 
 Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Mowbray. Explosives. 
 Infringement, combination, mere substitute. 12 Off. Gaz. 
 iii., Oct. 2. 
 
 Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Townsend. Explosives. 
 Infringement, combination. Preliminary injunction, same 
 questions pending in other circuits. 13 Off. Gaz. 45. 
 
 Atterbury v. Gill. Jelly-glass. Survivor of actions for 
 infringement. 13 Off. Gaz. 276.
 
 LIST OP CASES. 9 
 
 Attokxey-Gexeral ex rel. Hecker v. Rumford Chemical 
 
 Works. Pulverulent acid. Proceedings to vacate patents. 
 
 Relation of patentee to public. Jurisdiction. 9 Off. Gaz. 
 
 1062. 
 AuLTMAX V. HoLLEY. Harvester. Want of parties. Reissue 
 
 not for same invention. Infringement, same principle. 
 
 Want of novelty. 11 Blatch. 317; 6 Fisher, 534; 5 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 3.1 
 Avery v. Bushnell. Self-operator. Replevin, patented 
 
 machine. Contract to pay price. 123 Mass. 349. 
 Ayxing v. Hull. Caoutchouc. Original inventor. Suit too 
 
 soon after issue. Reasonable diligence. 2 Cliff. 494. 
 
 B. 
 
 Bachelder v. Moultox. Sewing-machines. Infringement, 
 
 particular patent. 11 Blatch. 304; 6 Fisher, 488; 4 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 501. 
 Badisciie Axilix axd Soda Fabrik v. Hamiltox Maxu- 
 
 f.\cturixg Co. Alizarine. Expiration of foreign patents. 
 
 Reissue not for same invention. 13 Off. Gaz. 273. 
 
 Badische Axilix axd Soda Fabrik v. Higgix. Alizarine. 
 Reissue not for same invention. Want of novelty. Infringe- 
 ment, same result, different process. 14 Off. Gaz. 414. 
 
 Bailey Washixg axd Wringixg Machine Co. v. Lixcolx. 
 Clothes-wringer. Danger of reissues. Want of novelty. 
 Infringement, combination. 4 Fisher, 379. 
 
 Bain v. Morse. Telegrajih. Interfering patents, decision of 
 commissioner. What interference is. Importance of form 
 and structure. 6 West. L. J. 372. 
 
 Baker v. Masox. Planing-machine. Covenant, interpretation 
 of. 3 R. I. 45. 
 
 Baldwix 1'. Berxhard. Ilats, bonnets, &c. Affidavits taken 
 before bill filed, withholding injunction when defendant 
 will take license. 5 Fisher, 442; 2 Off. Gaz. 320; 9 Blatch. 
 509, note. 
 
 1 Fullest report of case.
 
 10 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Baldwin v. Schultz. Hats, bonnets, &c. Reissues, infringe- 
 ment. Rehearing. 9 Blatch. 494; 5 Fisher, 75; 2 Off. 
 Gaz. 317. 
 
 Baldwin v. Sibley. Shoe-peg machine. Assignments of 
 patents. Parol declarations of patentees. Evidence. 1 
 ClifEord, 150. 
 
 Ball v. Bailie. Ovens. Construction of particular patent. 
 6 Off. Gaz. 933. 
 
 Ball v. Murry. Lock. Debt on bond. Assignment. Who 
 is entitled to a patent. 10 Penn. St. 111. 
 
 Ball v. Withington. Ovens. Construction of particular 
 patent. 6 Off. Gaz. 933. 
 
 Bancroft v. Acton. Damages, statute, counsel fees. 7 Blatch. 
 505. 
 
 Bantz v. Elsas. Furnaces. Infringement, combination. 
 Original inventor. Reissue not for same invention. 6 Off. 
 Gaz. 117. 
 
 Barclay v. Thayer. Bracelets. Infringement, particular 
 patent. 12 Blatch, 107; 6 Off. Gaz. 2. 
 
 Barker v, Stowe. Chain pumps. Reissue not for same in- 
 vention. Want of novelty. Infringement. 14 Off. Gaz. 
 559. 
 
 Barnard v. Gibson. Wood worth's planing-machine. Appeals 
 can be taken only from final decrees. 7 Howard, 650. 
 
 Barnes v. Morgan. Assignment, and what it means. 3 
 Hun (N. y.), 703; 6 Thomp. & Cook (N. Y.), 105. 
 
 Barnes v. Straus. Corset springs. Want of novelty, par- 
 ticular patent. 9 Blatch. 553; 5 Fisher, 531; 2 Off. Gaz. 
 62. 
 
 Barrett v. Hall. Dyeing cloth. Experts as witnesses. 
 Joint patents. Patents in general. Want of novelty. 1 
 Mason, 447; 1 Robb, 207. 
 
 Barry v. Everett. Tin-can machine. Inventor must claim 
 the features of his model to protect them. 5 Fisher, 452; 
 1 Off. Gaz. 382.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 11 
 
 Barry v. Gugenheim. Tin-can machine. Inventor must 
 claim the features of his model to protect them. 5 Fisher, 
 452; 1 Off. Gaz. 382. 
 
 Bartholomew v. Sawyer. Valve-cocks. Motion for new 
 trial. Evidence under general issue. 4 Blatch. 347; 1 
 Fisher, 516. 
 
 Bates v. Coe. Drilling-machines. Special defenses under 
 general issue. AVhat these defenses are. Printed publica- 
 tions. Reissue not for same invention. Inventions may be 
 kept secret. Burden of proof of infringement. Defenses 
 not set up in answer. 8 Otto, 31 ; 15 Off. Gaz. 337. 
 
 Batten v. Kear. Coal-breaker. Quantum valebant for use of 
 patented invention. United States courts have exclusive 
 jurisdiction. 2 Phila. (Penn.) 301. 
 
 Batten v. Silliman. Coal-breaker. Injunctions, prior de- 
 cisions, acquiescence. 3 Wall. Jr. 124. 
 
 Batten v. Taggert. Coal-breaker. Abandonment. Inventor 
 of part claiming the whole. 2 Wall. Jr. 101. 
 
 Batten v. Taggert. Coal-breaker. Combination of what he 
 invented and what he did not. Claiming the whole. 17 
 How. 74. 
 
 Baw v. Hawkins. (See La Baw v. Hawkins.) 
 
 Bean v. Smallwood. Rocking-chair. Old thing to new pur- 
 pose, not patentable. 2 Story, 408; 2 Robb, 133. 
 
 Beane v. Orr. License, fraud. 9 Off. Gaz. 255. 
 
 Bedford v. Hunt. Boots, &c. What utility is. First in- 
 ventor defined. 1 Mason, 302; 1 Robb, 148. 
 
 Belding v. Turner. Sewing-silk. Assignability of license. 
 8 Blatch. 321 ; 4 Fisher, 446. 
 
 Bell v. Bonney. Biscuit-machine. Sale of machine which 
 infringes ^ patent. Suit to recover price. 7 La. Ann. 170. 
 
 Bell v. Daniels. Steam-boilers. Defective specification. 
 Utility. Public use. Effect of caveats. Abandonment. 
 1 Bond, 212; 1 Fisher, 372. 
 
 Bell v. McCulloch. Steam-boilers. Verbal license. In- 
 creasing damages. 1 Bond, 194 ; 1 Fisher, 380.
 
 12 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Bell Manufacturing Co. (See Gong-Bell Manufactur- 
 ing Co.) 
 
 Bellas v. Hays. Steam-boiler. Writ of error. Contract, 
 executed by attorney, lack of consideration. 5 S. & R. 
 (Penn.) 427. 
 
 Bennet v. Fowler. Hay elevator. Motion for new trial. 
 What a single patent may cover. 8 Wall. 445. 
 
 Berdan Fire-arm Manufacturing Co. v. Remington. 
 Fire-arms. Improvement by workman in construction of 
 model. 3 Off. Gaz. 688. 
 
 Berger v. Peterson. Key-coupling instruments. Contract. 
 
 Evidence in chancery. Offer to pay, as a defense. 78 111. 
 
 633. 
 Bevin v. East Hampton Bell Co. Metallurgic furnaces. 
 
 Two years' prior use. Abandonment. 9 Blatch. 50; 5 
 
 Fishei, 23. 
 
 Bicknell v. Todd. Woodworth's planing-machine. Injunc- 
 tions. License. 5 McLean, 236. 
 
 Bierce v. Stocking. Lamps. Note, worthless patent. Com- 
 petency of expert. 11 Gray (Mass.), 174. 
 
 Bigelow v. City of Louisville. Wood pavement. Effect of 
 release of those primarily liable. 3 Fisher, 602. 
 
 Bigelow v. Matthews. Soda-water. Infringement, par- 
 ticular patent. 7 Blatch. 77. 
 
 Billings v. Ames. Putting up hams. State jurisdiction 
 where patents are brought in collaterally. Contracts in 
 restraint of trade. Measure of damages, depreciation of 
 price. 32 Mo. 265. 
 
 Binney v. Annan. Paper bags. Assignment of patent com- 
 pelled. 107 Mass. 94. 
 
 BiRDSALL V. Coolidge. Amalgamator. Damages, estab- 
 lished royalty. Infringement. 3 Otto, 64; 10 Off. Gaz. 748. 
 
 BiRDSELL V. Ashland Machine Co. Clover-machine. Aban- 
 donment. Reissue not for same invention. Want of 
 novelty. Infringement, combination. 6 Off. Gaz. 682.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 13 
 
 BiKDSELL V. HaGERSTOWN AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT MANU- 
 FACTURING Co. Clover-iiiacliine. Preliminary injunctions. 
 Previous decisions. Additional evidence. G Off. Gaz. 604. 
 
 BiRDSELL V. HaGERSTOWN AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT MANU- 
 FACTURING Co. Clover-machine. Contempt. Violation 
 of injunction. 1 Hughes, 59; 11 Off. Gaz. 420. 
 
 BiRDSELL V. HaGERSTOWN AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT MANU- 
 FACTURING Co. Clover-machine. Motion to enjoin plain- 
 tiffs from suing defendant's vendees, granted. 1 Hughes, 
 64; 11 Off. Gaz. 641. 
 
 BiRDSELL V. McDonald. Clover-machine. Abandonment. 
 Reissue not for same invention. Want of novelty. In- 
 fringement, combination. 6 Off. Gaz. 682. 
 
 BiRDSELL V. Perego. Clover-machine. Contract. Demurrer 
 to pleas. 5 Blatch. 251. 
 
 BiSHCHOFF 17. Wethered. Steam generator. Judgment in Eng- 
 lish Court of Common Pleas. Experts as witnesses. 9 
 Wall. 812. 
 
 Black v. Hubbard. Furnace. Right to use, how acquired. 
 12 Off. Gaz. 842. 
 
 Black v. Munsen. Furnace. Exceptions to Master's report, 
 rule of damages. 14 Blatch. 265. 
 
 Black v. Stone. Water-wheel. Recording assignments. 
 Equitable relief, mistake. Equity jurisdiction, full legal 
 remedy. 33 Ala. 327. 
 
 Black v. Thorne. Furnace, Reissue not for same invention. 
 Want of novelty. Infringement. 10 Blatch. 66 ; 5 Fisher, 
 550; 2 Off. Gaz. 388. 
 
 Black r. Thorne. Furnace, Master's report. Account of 
 profits. Evidence. 12 Blatch. 20; 7 Off. Gaz. 176. 
 
 Black v. Wells. Furnace. Exceptions to blaster's report, 
 rule of damages. 14 Blatch. 265. 
 
 Blaisdell v. Tufts, Soda-water apparatus. Construction of 
 patent, limited by state of the art. 15 Off. Gaz. 881. 
 
 Blake v. E.\gle Works Manufacturing Co. Stone-breaker. 
 Testimony of single witness on anticipation. 3 BisseU, 77; 
 4 Fisher, 591.
 
 14 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Blake v. Greenwood Cemetery. Stone-breaker. Prelim- 
 inary injunction. License. 14 Blatch. 3i2; 13 Off. Gaz. 
 1046. 
 
 Blake v. Rawson. Stone-breaker. Abandoned experiments. 
 Merits opened by motion for injunction. 1 Holmes, 200; 
 6 Fisher, 74; 3 Off. Gaz. 122. 
 
 Blake V. RoBERTSOX. Stone-breaker. Preliminary injunction. 
 Prior decisions. Want of novelty. Infringement, com- 
 bination. 6 Off. Gaz. 297; 6 Fisher, 509. 
 
 Blake v. Robertson. Stone-breaker. Infringement, com- 
 bination, particular patent. 11 Blatch. 237. 
 
 Blake v. Robertson. Stone-breaker. Utility. Want of 
 novelty. Infringement, combination. Cross-appeals. 4 
 Otto, 728; 11 Off. Gaz. 877. 
 
 Blake v. Sperry. Bed-castors. Want of novelty, particular 
 patent. 2 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 251. 
 
 Blake v. Stafford. Stone-breaker. Reissue not for same 
 invention. Fraud. Infringement, combination, old ele- 
 ments. New trial. Want of novelty. 6 Blatch. 195; 3 
 Fisher, 295. 
 
 Blakenay v. Goode. Water-wheel. Ohio law on assignments 
 of patents. 30 Ohio St. 350. 
 
 Blanchard v. Beers. Lathe for turning in-egular forms. 
 Extensions by Congress. Infringement, combination. 
 2 Blatch. 411. 
 
 Blanchard v. Eldridge. Lathe, irregular forms. Assign- 
 ments of patents. Parties to sue. 1 Wall. Jr. 337; 2 Robb, 
 737. 
 
 Blanchard v. Haynes. Lathe. Effect of extensions by 
 special act. 6 West. L. J. 82. 
 
 Blanchard v. Puttman. Wood-bending machine. Patents 
 are prima facie good whether held by plaintiff or defendant. 
 2 Bond, 84; 3 Fisher, 186. 
 
 Blanchard v. Puttman. Wood-bending machine. Original 
 inventor, patent prima facie evidence. Infringement. 
 Reverses above. 8 Wall. 420.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 15 
 
 Blanchard v. Reeves. Lathe, irregular forms. Prelim- 
 inary injunctions, prior decisions, infringement. 1 Fisher, 
 103. 
 
 Blanchard v. Sprague. Lathe, irregular forms. Construc- 
 tion of patents. Constitutionality of act of 1839. 3 Sum- 
 ner, 535; 1 Robb, 734; s. c. 2 Story, 164, and 1 Robb, 
 742. 
 
 Blanchard v. Sprague. Lathe, irregular forms. Parties as 
 witnesses. License. 1 Cliff. 288. 
 
 Blanchard r. Whitney, Lathe, irregular forms. Sale of 
 machine. Extended patent. 3 Blatch. 307. 
 
 Blanchard Gunstock Turning Factory v. Jacobs. Lathe, 
 irregular forms. Motion to set aside verdict, evidence. 
 2 Blatch. 69. 
 
 Blanchard Gunstock Turning Factory v. Warner. 
 Lathe, irregular forms. Motion for new trial. Effect of 
 assignments on extended patents. Infringement. 1 Blatch. 
 258. 
 
 Bland, Ex parte. Sewing-machine. Right of foreign patentee 
 to be free from interferences. 15 Off. Gaz. 828. 
 
 Blandy v. Griffeth. Steam-engines. Prior judgment. Orig- 
 inal inventor. Public use. Infringement. 3 Fisher, 609. 
 
 Blandy v. Griffeth. Steam-engines. Petition to file supple- 
 mental bill in nature of bill of review. Counter affidavits. 
 Cumulative testimony. 6 Fisher, 434. 
 
 Blank ». Manufacturing Co. Sickles. Account without 
 injunction. Jurisdiction. 3 Wall. Jr. 196. 
 
 Bliss v. City of Brooklyn. Hose-couplings. Illegal attempt 
 of State to let the city use without pay. 8 Blatch. 533 ; 4 
 Fisher, 596. 
 
 Bliss v. City of Brooklyn. Hose-couplings. Utility. Re- 
 issue not for same invention. 10 Blatch. 521 ; 6 Fisher, 
 289; 3 Off. Gaz. 269. 
 
 Bliss v. Gaylord Patent Coupling and Manufacturing 
 
 Co. Hose-couplings. Reissue not for same invention. 7 
 Blatch. 279.
 
 16 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Bliss v. Haight. Hose-couplings. Infringement, thing with 
 two functions not by one with one function. 7 Blatch. 7 ; 
 3 Fisher, 621. 
 
 Bliss v. Negus. Frescoing. Promissory note for a void patent. 
 8 Mass. 46. 
 
 Bloomer v. Gilpin. Woodworth's planing-macliine. License 
 
 transferred. Jurisdiction. 4 Fisher, 50. 
 Bloomer v. McQuewan. AVoodworth's planing-machine. 
 
 Machine bought before extension. Construction of statute. 
 
 14 Howard, 539. 
 Bloomer v. Millenger. Woodworth's planing-machine. 
 
 Machine bought before extension. Rights of patentees. 
 
 Rights of purchasers. 1 Wall. 340. 
 
 Bloomer v. Stolly. Woodworth's planing-machine. Motion 
 to dissolve injunction. Extension void, operates prospec- 
 tively only. License. 5 McLean, 158. 
 
 Boomer v. United Power Press Co. Cheese-presses. Re- 
 issue not for same invention, worthless. Want of novelty. 
 Damages. 13 Blatch. 107. 
 
 Booth v. Parks. Grain separator. Patentable combinations. 
 6 Chicago Legal News, 407. 
 
 Boston Elastic Fabric Co. (See Elastic Fabric Co.) 
 
 Boston Manufacturing Co. v. Fiske. Cotton speeder. 
 Counsel fees allowed by jury as actual damages. 2 Mason, 
 119; 1 Robb, 320. 
 
 Boston and Fair Haven Iron Works v. Montague. 
 Printing-presses. Chattel mortgage, equity jurisdiction. 
 108 Mass. 248. 
 
 Bourne v. Goodyear. Bill to vacate extension already ex- 
 pired. 9 Wall. 811. 
 
 BowKER V. Dows. Mineral waters. Infringement, combina- 
 tion, sale of materials. Patentability. 15 Off. Gaz. 510. 
 
 BoYCE V. Dorr. Water-wheels. Infringement by employe. 
 3 McLean, 582; 2 Robb, 302. 
 
 Boyd v. Brown. Bedsteads. What patents protect. Terri- 
 torial rights. 3 McLean, 295; 2 Robb, 203.
 
 LIST OP CASES. 17 
 
 Boyd v. McAlpin. Bedsteads. Recording assignments. In- 
 fringement, sale of product of patented machine. 3 Mc- 
 Lean, 427; 2 Robb. 277. 
 
 BoYDEN z'. Burke. Furnishing copies of patents. Exceptions. 
 Evidence. General instructions to jury. Refusal to furnish 
 copies held indefensible. 14 Howard, 575. 
 
 Brady v. Atlantic Works. Dredges. Original inventor. 
 Fraud. Infringement by government. 10 Off. Gaz. 702. 
 
 Brady v. Atlantic Works. Dredges. Gains and profits 
 the proper measure of damages. Master may examine 
 books, &c. 15 Off. Gaz. 965. 
 
 Brammer v. Jones. Stave-machine. Motion to dissolve in- 
 junetion. Lack of interest. License. 2 Bond, 100; 3 
 Fisher, 340. 
 
 Brandon Manufacturing Co. v. Prime. Cross-bill. Juris- 
 diction. New parties by cross-bill. 14 Blatch. 371. 
 
 Brass Go. (See Waterbury Brass Co.) 
 
 Bray v. Hartshorn. Curtains. Motion for new trial. Pat- 
 entability. Bad and ambiguous patent. Verdict against 
 evidence. 1 Cliff. 538. 
 
 Bridge v. Brown. Tan bark. Reissue not for same inven- 
 tion. Original inventor. Want of novelty. 1 Holmes, 
 53 ; 6 Fisher, 236. 
 
 Bridge v. Brown. Tan bark. Infringement, combination, 
 omitting one element. 3 Off. Gaz. 121. 
 
 Bridge Co. (See Keystone Bridge Co.) 
 
 Brodie v. Ophir Silver Mining Co. Amalgamator. Orig- 
 inal inventor, patent prima facie evidence. Rule of dam- 
 ages. 4 Fisher, 137. 
 
 Brooks v. Bicknell. Woodworth's planing-mivchme. De- 
 fective specification. Effect of answer prematurely filed. 
 Affidavits in support of bill. Illegal extension. Infringe- 
 ment. 3 McLean, 250; 2 Robb, 118. 
 
 Brooks v. Bicknell. Woodworth's planing-macbine. As- 
 signment, effect of, by statute. 4 McLean, 64. 
 2
 
 18 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Brooks t'. BiCKXELL. Woodworth's planing-machine. Motion 
 for new trial. Renewal of patents. Assignments. Suffi- 
 ciency of specifications. Want of novelty. Infringement, 
 combination. 4 McLean, 70. 
 
 Brooks v. Byam. Matches. Assignment. License. Appor- 
 tionment. 2 Story, 525; 2 Robb, 161. 
 
 Brooks v. Fiske. Woodworth's planing-machine. Want of 
 novelty. Reissue not for same invention. Infringement. 
 Three judges dissented. 15 Howard, 212. 
 
 Brooks v. Morehouse. Buttoner. Original inventor. Prior 
 
 public use. Estoppel by contract to contest the validity of 
 
 the patent. 13 Off. Gaz. 499. 
 Brooks v. Norcross. Woodworth's planing-machine. Juries 
 
 in chancery practice. Original inventor, French patents. 
 
 Infringement. 2 Fisher, 661. 
 
 Brooks v. Stolley. Woodworth's planing-machine. Juris- 
 diction in case of license. Conditional assignments. Can- 
 celling contracts. 3 McLean, 523; 2 Robb, 281. 
 
 Brown v. Duchesne. Gaffs for vessels. Patented articles 
 used in France for French vessel coming here not in our 
 jurisdiction. 2 Curtis, 371. 
 
 Brown v. Duchesne. Gaffs for vessels. Same as above. In- 
 terpi-etation of our laws. Above affirmed. 19 Howard, 
 183. 
 
 Brown v. Guild. Corn-planter. Original inventor. Want 
 of novelty. Reissue not for same invention. Fraud. In- 
 fringement, combination. 23 Wall. 181; 6 Off. Gaz. 392. 
 
 Brown v. Hall. Paint-cans. Original inventor. Want of 
 
 novelty. Notice of defense in answer. 6 Blatch. 401; 3 
 
 Fisher, 531. 
 Brown v. Hinkley. Hand-cars for railways. Preliminary 
 
 injunction, denied, short time since reissue. 6 Fisher, 
 
 370; 3 Off. Gaz. 381. 
 
 Brown v. Piper. Preserving fish. Patentability, old process 
 to new purpose. State of art admissible under general 
 issue. Judicial cognizance. 1 Otto, 37 ; 10 Off. Gaz. 417.
 
 TJST OF CASES. 19 
 
 Brown v. Rubber Step Manufacturing Co. Rubber door- 
 mat. Infringement, same function. 13 Off. Gaz. 369. 
 
 Brown v. Selby. Seed-planter. Reissue not for same inven- 
 tion, claim cut down. Infringement, combination. 2 
 Bissell, 457; 4 Fisher, 363. 
 
 Brown v. Selby. Corn-planter. Original inventor. Want of 
 novelty. Reissue not for same invention. Fraud. In- 
 fringement, combination. Above reversed. 23 Wall. 181 ; 
 6 Off. Gaz. 392. 
 
 Brown v. Shanxon. Woodworth's planing-machine. Juris- 
 diction, contract. Assignment. 20 Howard, 55. 
 
 Bkown r. Whittemore. Hay-rakes. Public use. State of art. 
 Infringement, combination. 5 Fisher, 524; 2 Off. Gaz. 248. 
 
 Brown v. Wright. Medicine. Bond, void patent, no con- 
 sideration. 17 Ark. 9. 
 
 Bruff v. Ives. Curved augers. Want of novelty, particular 
 patent. 14 Blatch. 198; 11 Off. Gaz. 924. 
 
 Bryce v. Dorr (should be Boyce v. Dorr, (]. v.). 
 
 Buchanan v. Howland. Paper pulp. Patents in law or equity. 
 Juries in patent causes. Want of novelty. Original in- 
 ventor. Utility. Infringement, substantially same process. 
 5 Blatch. 151 (only half of it) ; 2 Fisher, 341. 
 
 Buck v. Cobb. Cooking-stove. Joinder of parties. Burden 
 of proof. 9 Law Rep. 545. 
 
 Buck v. Gill. Cooking-stove. Infringement, combination, 
 particular patent. 4 McLean, 174; 2 Robb, 510. 
 
 Buck v. Hermance. Cooking-stove. New trial, rejection of 
 evidence. Parties as witnesses. 1 Blatch. 322. 
 
 Buck r. Hermance. Cooking-stove. Construction of patents. 
 Want of novelty, combination. Original inventor. In- 
 fringement, combination. 1 Blatch. 398. 
 
 Buerk v. Imhauser. Watchman's time-detector. Infringe- 
 ment, combination, particular patent. 5 Off. Gaz. 752. 
 
 Buerk i\ Imhauser. Watchman's time-detector. Xew trials. 
 Affidavits not entitled. Power of notaries. 10 Off. Gaz. 907. 
 
 Buerk v. Imhauser. Watchman's time-detector. Master's re- 
 port. Rule of damages. 14 Blatch. 19 ; 10 Off. Gaz. 907.
 
 20 PATENT CASE INDEX, 
 
 BuERK V. Imhauser. Watchman's time-detector. Contempt, 
 
 sale of ai-ticles undei' patent not considered at the trial. 
 
 11 Off. Gaz. 112. 
 BuERK V. Valentine. Watchman's time-detector. Original 
 
 inventor. Want of novelty. Infringement, combination. 
 
 9 Blatch. 479; 5 Fisher, 366; 2 Off. Gaz. 295. 
 
 Bull v. Pratt. Comb-machine. Invalid patent, sold by 
 fraud. 1 Conn. 342. 
 
 Bullock Printing Press Co. v. Jones. Printing-machines. 
 Original inventor. Prior knowledge. Infringement, com- 
 bination. 13 Off. Gaz. 124. 
 
 BuRDELL V. Denig. Sewing-machines. Assignment. Con- 
 tract. Accord and satisfaction. Nominal damages. 2 
 Fisher, 588. 
 
 Burdell v. Denig. Sewing-machines. New trial. Measure 
 of damages. Interpretation of papers as to their making a 
 contract or not. 2 Otto, 716. 
 
 Burden v. Corning. Horse-shoes. Uncertainty in specifica- 
 tion. State of art. Construction of patents. Equivalent 
 defined. Word " combination." Omissions. Disclaimer, 
 Delay. Notice of defense. 2 Fisher, 477. 
 
 Burdett v. Estey. Reed organs. Disclaimers, unreasonable 
 delay. Want of novelty. 15 Off. Gaz. 877. 
 
 Burleigh Rock Drill Co. v. Lobdell. Rock drill. Pre- 
 liminary injunction, no prior decisions, infringement must 
 be clear. 1 Holmes, 450; 7 Off. Gaz. 836. 
 
 Burns v. Barnes. Furnace. Note for assignment of patent. 
 Fraud. 58 Indiana, 436. 
 
 Burr v. Cowperthwait. Hat-bodies. Original inventor. 
 Want of novelty. Particular patent. Utility. Infringe- 
 ment, process. 4 Blatch. 163. 
 
 Burr v. Duryee. Hat-bodies. Assignment. License, 
 Patents before board of examiners was made. Reissue not 
 for same invention. Infringement. 2 Fisher, 275. 
 
 Burr v. Duryee. Hat-bodies. Reissue not for same inven- 
 tion. What patents are for. Infringement, combination. 
 1 Wall. 531.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 21 
 
 Burr v. Gregory. Veneers. Sale of patent-right. No juris- 
 diction of United States court where validity of patent is 
 not involved. 2 Paine, 426. 
 
 BuRRALL V. Jewett. Thresliing-machine. Sale of patented 
 machine. Fraud. Jurisdiction of State courts in patent 
 suits. 2 Paige (N.Y.), 134. 
 
 BuRRAi-L V. lluMSEY. Corn-sheller. Patent for different result 
 must show process. 13 Off. Gaz. 123. 
 
 Burrows v. Lehigh Zinc Co. Furnace. Held not to be the 
 inventor. 31 Leg. Int. 332. 
 
 Buss V. Putney. Saw. Sale of patented machine and a thing 
 covered by another's patent is license to use the thing. 38 
 N. H. 44. 
 
 BussEY V. Hicks. Reservoir. Want of novelty. Utility. Con- 
 struction of patent. Infringement, combination. 9 Off. 
 Gaz. 300. 
 
 Bussey v. Hicks. Reservoir. Perpetual injunction issued. 9 
 Off. Gaz. 594. 
 
 Bussey v. Wager. Reservoir. Want of novelty. Utility. 
 Construction of patent. Infringement, combination. 9 Off. 
 Gaz. 300. 
 
 Butch v. Boyer. Steam-engine. Promissory note. Want of 
 novelty. 8 Phila. (Penn.) 57. 
 
 Button Hole Machine Co. (See Singer Button Hole 
 Machine Co.) 
 
 BuTTRiCK V. Park. Well-tubes. Tort for deceit, false rep- 
 resentations. 103 Mass. 501. 
 
 Byam v. Bullard. Matches. Purchase by agent of patentee 
 as evidence of infringement. 1 Curtis, 100. 
 
 Byam v. Eddy. ^Matches. Contempt. Want of novelty. In- 
 fringement, combination, colorable alteration. Bond. 2 
 Blatch. 521 ; 24 Vt. 666. 
 
 Byam v. Farr. Matches. Infringement, known equivalents. 
 Disclaimer. 1 Curtis, 260. 
 
 Byam v. Goodwin. Matches. (See Ryan t;. Goodwin.)
 
 22 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 c. 
 
 Cahart v. Austin. Eeed musical instruments. Reissue not 
 for same invention. Original inventor. 2 Cliff. 528; 2 
 Fisher, 543. 
 
 Cahill v. Beckford. Leather dressing. Want of novelty, 
 state of the art, new process, new product. 1 Holmes, 48. 
 
 Cahill v. Brown. Leather dressing. Inventors of combina- 
 tions, rights of. Rules applicable to combinations. Orig- 
 inal inventor, patent presumptive evidence. Foreign 
 patents. Credibility of evidence. 15 Off. Gaz. 697. 
 
 Cahoon v. Ring. Seed-planter. Charge to jury. Patent 
 prima facie evidence of what. Abandoned experiments. 
 Prior knowledge. Equivalents. Infringement, combina- 
 tion. Test of similarity. Trial by jury. 1 Cliff. 592; 1 
 Fisher, 397. 
 
 Calkins v. Bertrand. Cultivators. Original inventor. Re- 
 issue not for same invention. Certainty in claims of patents. 
 Infringement. 6 Bissell, 494; 9 Off. Gaz. 795. 
 
 Cammeyer u. Newton. Adjustable still-water dam. Infringe- 
 ment, combination, by officer of United States. 12 Blatch. 
 122; 5 Off. Gaz. 753. 
 
 Cammeyer v. Newton. Adjustable still-water dam. Assign- 
 ments before issue. Original inventor. Want of novelty. 
 Particular patent. Utility. Infringement, combination, 
 by United States officer. Above affirmed. 4 Otto, 225; 
 11 Off. Gaz. 287. 
 
 Campbell v. Barclay. Tool to make metallic seams. Rule 
 of damages, price he has sold machine no criterion, 
 profits, advantage. 5 Bissell, 179. 
 
 Cansler v. Eaton. Smut-machine. Assignment, no fraud 
 2 Jones Eq. (N. C.) 499. 
 
 Car Spring Co. (See National Car Spring Co.) 
 
 Carew v. Boston Elastic Fabric Co. Vulcanized India 
 rubber. Right of assignee of executor to reissue. Con- 
 struction of statute. 1 Holmes, 45.
 
 LIST OP CASES. 23 
 
 Carew v. Boston Elastic Fabric Co. Vulcanized india- 
 rubber. Granting of reissues. Title of complainant. 
 Original inventor. Want of novelty. Infringement. As- 
 signees of executors. Practice, interlocutory decree. 
 Profits. Damages. 3 Cliff. 35G; 5 Fisher, 90; 1 Off. Gaz. 
 91. 
 
 Carleton v. Atwood. Abandonment. Five years lying dor- 
 mant. 2 A. L. T. (U. S.) R. 129. 
 
 Carlton v. Bokee. Lamps. Reissue not for same invention. 
 Want of novelty. Infringement. 6 Fisher, 40. 
 
 Carlton v. Bokee. Lamps. Construction of claims. State 
 of art. Reissue not for same invention. Infringement, 
 combination. Above affirmed. 17 Wall. 463; 2 Off. Gaz. 
 520. 
 
 Carr v. Rice. Bran-duster. Charge to jury. Patents and 
 patentees. Validity. Want of novelty. Infringement, 
 combination. 1 Fisher, 198. 
 
 Carr v. Rice. Bran-duster. Action at law. New trial. In- 
 fringement. 4 Blatch. 200; 1 Fisher, 325. 
 
 Carstaedt v. United States Corset Co. Take-up mechan- 
 ism for looms. Want of novelty. Infringement, combina- 
 tion. 13 Blatch. 119; 9 Off. Gaz. 151. 
 
 Carstaedt v. United States Corset Co. Take-up mechan- 
 ism for looms. Contempt. Violation of injunction, sub- 
 stitution of equivalent. 13 Blatch. 371; 10 Off. Gaz. 3. 
 
 Carter v. Baker. Gang-plows. Charge to jury. Patent, 
 prima facie evidence of original inventor. Infringement, 
 ■well-known equivalents. Damages. 1 Sawyer, 512; 4 
 Fisher, 404. 
 
 Carter v. Messinger. Extension-tables. Reissue not for 
 same invention. Want of novelty. Patentability. In- 
 fringement. 11 Blatch. 34. 
 
 Cartridge Co. (See Union Metallic Cartridge Co.) 
 
 Carver v. Braintree Manufacturing Co. Cotton-gin. 
 Uncertainty in specification. Reissue not for same inven- 
 tion. Questions for jury. Construction of statute. New 
 trial. Courts don't supply deficiencies in legislation. 2 
 Story, 432; 2 Robb, 141. 
 
 :^^.
 
 24 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Carver v. Hyde. Cotton-gin. Purpose not patentable. In- 
 fringement. 16 Peters, 513. 
 
 Case v. Brown. Seed-planter. Charge to jury. Want of 
 novelty. Original inventor. Reissue not for same inven- 
 tion. Infringement. 1 Bissell, 382; 2 Fisher, 268. 
 
 Case v. Brown. Seed-planter. Exceptions to ruling, on par- 
 ticular patent. Above affirmed. 2 Wall. 320. 
 
 Case v. Morey. "Power." Money paid under contract. 
 Value of patents. 1 N. H. 317. 
 
 Case v. Redfield. Water-wheel. Assignments recorded. 
 Extensions not carried by assignments. Pleading, multi- 
 fariousness. 4 McLean, 526; 2 Robb, 741. 
 
 Cawood Patent (Illinois Railroad v. Turrill, &c. Five 
 Cases.) Anvil. State of* art. Want of novelty. Foreign 
 patents. Infringement, profits. 4 Otto, 695; 12 Off. Gaz. 
 709. 
 
 Celluloid Manufacturing Co. v. Goodyear Dental Vul- 
 canite Co. Artificial gums, &c. General law of right to 
 sell. Decision of points not in issue. Jurisdiction. 13 
 Blatch. 375; 10 Off. Gaz. 41. 
 
 Chabot v. American Button Hole and Overseaming Co. 
 Sewing-machine. Rule of law, employe making experi- 
 ments. 6 Fisher, 71. 
 
 Chaffee v. Boston Belting Co. India-rubber. Trespass on 
 the case for infringement. Bill of exceptions is part of the 
 record. Assignments. Machine sold passes out of the 
 monopoly. Continue to use. Court below reversed. 22 
 Howard, 217. 
 
 Chaffee v. Hayward. India-rubber. Motion to dismiss. 
 Error in citation. Construction of act of 1789. District 
 where defendant lives in civil suits. 20 Howard, 208. 
 
 Chambers v. Smith. Brick-machine. Suits by licensee in his 
 own name. Notice of license, purchaser's risk. 5 Fisher, 
 12. 
 
 Chase v. Sabin. Buckles. Want of novelty of particular 
 patent. 1 Holmes, 395; 6 Off. Gaz. 728.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 25 
 
 Chase v. Walker. Wire grating. Effect of assignment on 
 extension. 3 Fisher, 120. 
 
 Chase v. Wesson. Ilalter-rings. Preliminary injunction, 
 long enjoyment of rigiit, plain infringement. 1 Holmes, 
 274; 6 Fisher, 517; 4 Off. Gaz. 476. 
 
 Chemical Works. (See Rumford Chemical Works.) 
 
 Chicago and Alton Railroad v. Turrill. (See Cawood 
 Patent.) 
 
 Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad v. Turrill. 
 (See Cawood Patent.) 
 
 Chicago Fruit House Co. v. Buscii. Fruit-houses. Reissue 
 not for same invention. Infringement, combination. 2 
 Bissell, 472; 4 Fisher, 395. 
 
 Chicago and Northwestern Railroad v. Sayles. Car- 
 brakes. Infringement. Particular patent. Construction of 
 patents. Gradual growth. 7 Otto, 554; 15 Off. Gaz. 213. 
 
 Child (Mini's Assignee) v. Adams. Lampblack. Alien, false 
 oath. Reissue. Construction of the patent. 3 AVall. Jr. 
 20; 1 Fisher, 189. 
 
 Child v. Boston and Fairhaven Iron Works. Printing- 
 press. Original inventor. Prior use. Want of novelty. 
 Patentability. 1 Holmes, 303 ; 6 Fisher, 606 ; 5 Off. Gaz. 61. 
 
 Chipman v. Wentworth. Carpet lining. Preliminary in- 
 junctions, doubt of validity of jtatent, state of the art. 
 Patents for improvements. 1 Holmes, 96; 5 Fisher, 302; 
 2 Off. Gaz. 58. 
 
 City of Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. Wooden pavement. 
 Foreign patent or publications, time of. Public use. 
 Abandonment. Profits by means of improvements. 7 
 Otto, 126. 
 
 City of New York v. Ransom. Fire-engine. Instruction 
 of the court. Profits and damages. 23 How. 487. 
 
 Clan Ranald v. Wyckoff. Suit by receiver for assignment 
 of patent. Jurisdiction. 41 N. Y. Supr. 527. 
 
 Clark v. Bousfield. Printing-bed. ]\lachine to print de- 
 signs is not a " desigrn." 10 Wall. 133.
 
 26 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Clark v. Church. (See Fisk kt al. v. Church.) 
 
 Clakk v. Kennedy Manufacturing Co. Bolts. Construc- 
 tion of patents. State of the art. Reissue not for same 
 invention. Infringement, process. 14 Blatch. 79 ; 11 Off. 
 Gaz. 67. 
 
 Clark v. Scott. Hand-mirror. Construction of patents. 
 State of the art. Abandonment. Original inventor, too 
 general statement in answer. 9 Blatch. 301 ; 5 Fisher, 245; 
 2 Off. Gaz. 4. 
 
 Clark v. Smith. Purifying middlings. Note for reassign- 
 ment of half-interest in patent. Failure of consideration. 
 21 Minn. 539. 
 
 Clark Patent Steam and Fire Regulator Co. v. Cope- 
 land. Steam-engines. Charge to jury. Want of novelty, 
 patent prima facie evidence, inventive skill. Infringe- 
 ment. 2 Fisher, 221. 
 
 Cleveland v. Towle. Suspenders. Two years' prior use 
 by others than patentee. Infringement, use of invention 
 as element of combination. 3 Fisher, 525. 
 
 Clothes Wringer Co. (See Eureka Co.) 
 
 Clough v. Gilbert and Barker Manufacturing Co. Gas- 
 burners. Infringement, equivalents. 15 Off. Gaz. 1009. 
 
 Clough v. Patrick. Mowing-machine. Note, void patent no 
 consideration. 37 Vt. 421. 
 
 Clum v. Brewer. Electric telegraph. Preliminary injunctions. 
 Prior decisions. Sale of invention before patent issues, effect 
 on extension. Assignment to defendant. 2 Curtis, 506. 
 
 Cochrane v. Deener. Manufacture of iiour. Jurisdiction of 
 Supreme Court of District of Columbia. Want of novelty. 
 Reissue not for same invention. 4 Otto, 780 ; 11 Off. Gaz. 687. 
 
 Coffin v. Ogden. Locks. Construction of patents. Want of 
 novelty. Infringement. 7 Blatch. 61 ; 3 Fisher, 640. 
 
 Coffin v. Ogden. Locks. Want of novelty. Burden of 
 proof. Above affirmed. 18 AA^all. 120; 5 Off. Gaz. 270. 
 
 CoHNw. National Rubber Co. Shoes. Licensees violating their 
 contract are to be treated as infringers. 15 Off. Gaz. 829.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 27 
 
 CoHN V. United States Corset Co. Corsets. Printed pub- 
 lications. Prior knowledge. Amount of proof. 12 Blatch. 
 225; 6 Off. Gaz. 259. 
 
 CoHX V. United States Corset Co. Corsets. Printed pub- 
 lications. Above affirmed. 3 Otto, 366; 11 Off. Gaz. 457. 
 
 Cole v. Kennedy. Fluting-machine. Decree. Patent de- 
 clared valid. 9 Off. Gaz. 1110. 
 
 Colgate v. Western Union Telegraph Co. Submarine 
 cable. Interpretation of the patent. Want of novelty. 
 Prior use. Abandonment. 11 Off. Gaz. 913. 
 
 Collar Co. (See Union Paper Collar Co.) 
 
 CoLLENDER V. Bailey. Billiard cushions. Infringement. Con- 
 struction of patent. 13 Off. Gaz. 277. 
 
 CoLLENDER r. Came. Billiard cushions. What patents are for. 
 Fatent prima facie evidence of original inventor. Defenses in 
 answer must be proved. Infringement. 10 Off. Gaz. 467. 
 
 CoLLENDER V. Griffeth. Billiard cusliions. Admissibility 
 of evidence. 11 Blatch. 212; 3 Off. Gaz. 689. 
 
 Collins v. Peebles. Furnaces. Limitations in patent suits, 
 State statutes. 2 Fisher, 541. 
 
 Colt v. Massachusetts Arms Co. Fire-arms. Charge to 
 jury. Senior and junior patents. Patentees of improve- 
 ments. Prior invention is not prior use. Date of inven- 
 tions. 1 Fisher, 108. 
 
 Colt v. Young. Fire-arms. Validity of extensions. Juris- 
 diction of Commissioner. 2 Blatch. 471. 
 Comb Co. (See India-rubber Comb Co.) 
 
 Commissioner of Patents v. Whitely. Mowing-machine. 
 Application for reissue by sectional assignee. When man- 
 damus will lie. 4 Wall. 522. 
 
 CoMSTOCK V. Sandusky Seat Co. Carriage bodies. Want of 
 novelty. Public use. Infriiigement. Defense in answer. 
 13 Off. Gaz. 230. 
 
 CoNKLiN V. Stafford. Cultivators. Appeal from Commis- 
 sioner's decision. Right to a reissue. Abandonment. 
 Province of Commissioner. Appeals. 5 Off. Gaz. 235.
 
 28 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 CoNOVER V. DoHRMAN. Wood-spUtting machine. Infringe- 
 ment. Comparison of tlie machines. 6 Blatch. 60; 3 
 Fisher, 382. 
 
 CoNOVER t;. Mers. Wood-splitting machine. Preliminary 
 injunctions, prior decisions, responsibility of defendant. 
 
 3 Fisher, 386. 
 
 Conover v. Mers. Wood- splitting machine. Master's report. 
 Saving by use. Profits. 11 Blatch. 197; 6 Fisher, 506. 
 
 Conover v. Rapp. Wood-splitting machine. Charge to jury. 
 Patent prima facie evidence of novelty. Infringement, 
 equivalents. Experts as witnesses. Patentees of improve- 
 ments. Damages. 4 Fisher, 57. 
 
 Conover w. Roach. Wood-splitting machine. Charge to 
 jury. What constitutes invention. Patentability. In- 
 fringement, combination, change of form of parts. Equiv- 
 alents. 4 Fisher, 12. 
 
 Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. AVhitney. Fruit-jars. 
 Modifying injunctions. Subdividing patents not allowed. 
 Notice of suit for fraud. Right to injunction. Protection 
 for defendants. 31 Leg. Int. 229. 
 
 Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Wright. Fruit-jars. Origi- 
 nal inventor. Public use. Abandonment. 12 Blatch. 149 ; 
 6 Off. Gaz. 327. 
 
 Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Wright. Fruit-jars. Prior 
 use. Abandonment. Above affirmed. 4 Otto, 92. 
 
 Continental Windmill Co. r. Empire Windmill Co. 
 Wind-wheels. Contract. Invention by employe. Equity 
 jurisdiction. Legal and equitable titles. 8 Blatch. 295; 
 
 4 Fisher, 428. 
 
 Converse v. Cannon. Steamboat staging. Infringement, 
 same principle. 2 Woods, 7; 9 Off. Gaz. 105. 
 
 Cook v. Ernest. Metallic bale ties. Right to sue on separate 
 claims. Utility. Want of novelty. Patent prima facie 
 evidence. Infringement. 5 Fisher, 396; 2 Off. Gaz. 89. 
 
 Cook v. Howard. Dust deflector. Defenses set up in answer 
 must be proved. Patentees of improvements. Infringe- 
 ment, formal differences. 4 Fisher, 269.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 29 
 
 CooLiDGE V. McCoNE. Amalgamating pans. Charge to jury. 
 Infringement, combination of three not infringed by two. 
 
 2 Sawyer, 571 ; 5 Off. Gaz. 458. 
 
 Cooper v. Mattheys. Raih-oad carriages. Injunction not 
 granted where long adverse possession by defendant. Not 
 granted where facts or credibility of witnesses have to be 
 decided. Unreasonable delay in bringing suit. 5 Penn. 
 L. J. 38; 8 Law Rep. 413. 
 
 Corliss v. Wheeler and Wilson Manufacturing Co. 
 Steam-engines. Interpretation of the particular patent. 2 
 Fisher, 199. 
 
 Cornell v. American Bush Co. Bushes and wrenches. Con- 
 struction of patents. Patentability. 7 Bissell, 346; 11 
 0£E. Gaz. 331. 
 
 Cornell v. Downer and Bemis Brewing Co. Bushes and 
 wrenches. Construction of patents. Patentability. 7 
 Bissell, 346; 11 Off. Gaz. 331. 
 
 Cornell v. Littlejohn. Bushes and wrenches. Interpreta- 
 tion of the patent. Preliminary injunction. 9 Off. Gaz. 
 837; s. c. 932. 
 
 CoRNELY V. Henderickx. Sewing-machine. Merely an order 
 of court. 12 Off. Gaz. 431. 
 
 Corning v. Burden. Nail-machine. Exceptions. Admissi- 
 bility of evidence. Want of novelty. 15 How. 252. 
 
 Cotton Tie Co. (See American Cotton Tie Co.) 
 
 Cowan v. Dodd. Horse-collar machine. False representations 
 on sale of patented machine. Note, lack of consideration. 
 
 3 Coldw. (Tenn.) 278. 
 
 Cowan v. Mitchell. Horse-collar machine. Note, worthless 
 invention. Action of Patent Office on patent is conclusive. 
 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 87. 
 
 Cowing v. Rumsey. Cylinder polisher. New trial. Wrong 
 rule of damages. 8 Blatch. 36; 4 Fisher, 275. 
 
 Cox V. Griggs. Drain-plows. Charge to jury. Patent prima 
 facie evidence of original inventor. Utility. Infringement. 
 Rule of damages. 1 Bissell, 362; 2 Fisher, 174.
 
 30 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Crag IX v. Fowler. Seed-sower. Note, worthless patent, no 
 consideration. 34 Vt. 326. 
 
 Craig ?•. Fisher. Attachment and fine for contempt. 5 Pac. 
 L. R. 5J. 
 
 Craig v. Smith. Drive-well. Original inventor. Construction 
 of the patent. 2 Dillon, 375. 
 
 Craig v. Smith. Drive-well. Want of novelty. Infringe- 
 ment, combination. 4 Dillon, 349. 2 Cent. L. J. 2.56. 
 
 Cranson v. Smith. Notes given for patent under Michigan 
 law. 37 Mich. 309. 
 
 Crittexden v. White. Illegality of State legislation on sale 
 of patent-rights. 23 Minn. 24. 
 
 Crocker's Case. Two patents for same invention, one joint 
 and one sole. 2 A. L. T. (U. S.) R. 129. 
 
 Crompton v. Belkxap Mills. Looms. Patent prima facie 
 evidence. Want of novelty. Utility. Patentability. Re- 
 issue not for same invention. Illegality of extension. In- 
 fringement, combination. 3 Fisher, 536. 
 
 Crosby v. Lapouraille. Saw-mill. Patentability, new com- 
 bination of old elements. Infringement, combination. 
 Taney, Dec. 374. 
 
 Cross v. Huntly. Washing-machine. Want of novelty. 
 Void patent, too large a claim. 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 385. 
 
 Crouch v. Roemer. Shawl strap. Patent prima facie evi- 
 dence. Want of novelty. Public use. 11 Off. Gaz. 1112. 
 
 Crouch y. Speer. Shawl-strap. Patent pn'ma /ac/e evidence. 
 Want of novelty. Patentability. Utility. 6 Off. Gaz. 
 187. 
 
 Curtis v. Branch. Circular saws. Reissue not for same in- 
 vention, too large claims in reissue. 15 Off. Gaz. 919. 
 
 Cutter Co. (See Steam Cutter Co.) 
 
 Cutting v. Myers. Steamboats. What the declaration in a 
 patent suit must contain. 4 Wash. 220; 1 Robb, 159.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 31 
 
 D. 
 
 Dalton r. Jennings. Ladies' hair-nets. Interpretation of the 
 
 particular patent. 12 Blatch. 96; 5 Off. Gaz. 615. 
 Dalton v. Jennings. Ladies' hair-nets. Want of novelty. 
 
 Public use. Above affirmed. 3 Otto, 271; 11 Off. Gaz. 
 
 111. 
 Dalton v. Nelson. Steam-gauge cock. Patentability, change 
 
 of material. 13 Blatch. 357; 9 Off. Gaz. 1112. 
 
 Dane v. Chicago Manufacturing Co. Lanterns. Date of 
 inventions. Want of novelty. 3 Bissell, 380; 6 Fisher, 
 130; 2 Off. Gaz. 677. 
 
 Dane v. Chicago Manufacturing Co. Lanterns. Infringe- 
 ment, combination. Want of novelty. Above affirmed. 
 7 Off. Gaz. 92L 
 
 Dane v. Illinois Manufacturing Co. Lanterns. Infringe- 
 ment, combination. Want of novelty. 3 Bissell, 374; 6 
 Fisher, 124; 2 Off. Gaz. 6S0.i 
 
 Darst v. Brockway. Cement. Law of patents. Want of 
 novelty. Failure of consideration of note. 11 Ohio, 462. 
 
 David v. Park. Well-tubes. Tort for deceit. False repre- 
 sentations. 103 Mass. 501. 
 
 Davis v. Bell.' Tanning hides. Void patent. Too broad 
 claims. Contract. 8 X. H. 500. 
 
 Davis v. Gray. Reaper. Pleading. Note for patent. Ex- 
 clusion of evidence. 17 Ohio St. 330. 
 
 Davis v. McCormick. Plow. Uncertainty in specification. 
 Construction of patent. 2 Brock. 208; 1 Robb, 518. 
 
 Davis ». Palmer. Plow. Uncertainty in specification. 
 Construction of patent. 2 Brock. 298 ; 1 Robb, 518. 
 
 Davoll v. Brown. Cotton-speeder. Construction for the 
 court. Patents, how construed. 1 W. & M. 53; 2 Robb. 
 303. 
 
 1 Misnamed in the Official Gazette, Dane t". Chicago Manufacturing Co.
 
 32 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Davy v. Morgan. Sleigh shafts. Note. Consideration. Con- 
 struction of revenue acts. Parol agreement for patent. 56 
 Barb. (N. Y.) 218. 
 
 Dawson v. Follen. Suspenders. Original inventor for whole 
 world. 2 Wash. 311; 1 Robb, 9. 
 
 Day v. Bankers and Brokers' Telegraph Co. Telegraph. 
 Want of novelty. Infringement, combination. 9 Blatch. 
 345; 5 Fisher, 268; 1 Off. Gaz. 551. 
 
 Day v. Boston Belting Co. India-rubber. What preliminary 
 injunctions are for, in statu quo. Practice as to affidavits. 
 16 Law Rep. 329. 
 
 Day v. Candee. India-rubber. Cannot convey extended pat- 
 ent before extension. Equitable titles. Powers of attor- 
 ney. Mischief by injunction. Licensees. Contract. 3 
 Fisher, 9. 
 
 Day v. Caky. India-rubber, Construction of grants. Ex- 
 traneous facts. " Renewal " means " extension," not " re- 
 issue." 1 Fisher, 424. 
 
 Day v. Hartshorn. India-rubber, Preliminary injunctions. 
 Verdict at law. Motion for new trial pending. License. 
 3 Fisher, 32. 
 
 Day' v. Hayward. India-rubber, Motion to dismiss. Error 
 in citation. Construction of act of 1789. District where 
 defendant lives in civil suits. 20 Howard, 208. 
 
 Day v. New England Car Spring Co. India-rubber. Pre- 
 liminary injunctions. Practice of courts. License as a 
 defence. Rebutting evidence, 3 Blatch. 154. 
 
 Day v. New England Car Spring Co. India-rubber. Action 
 at law. Special plea of license, not attacking validity of 
 the patent. 3 Blatch, 179. 
 
 Day v. Newark iNDiA-RtmnER Co. India-rubber. Jurisdiction 
 over foreign corporation, found in State. 1 Blatch. 628. 
 
 Day v. Stellman. India-rubber. Expert testimony. Con- 
 struction of written instruments. Assignments. 1 Fisher, 
 487.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 33 
 
 Day v. Uxiox India-rubbeu Co. India-rubber. Licensee 
 before extension uses after. Special acts to extend. Right 
 to use. 3 Blatch. 488. 
 
 Day v. Union India-rubber Co. India-rubber. Right to 
 use before extension. 20 Howard, 216. 
 
 Daytox v. Wright. Wire sieve. Motion to dissolve injunc- 
 tion, privity of purchaser. 11 Off. Gaz. 197. 
 
 Dean v. Charlton. Wooden pavement. Power of city to 
 make tax-payers pay for use of patented pavement. 23 
 Wise. 590. 
 
 Dean v. Mason. Planing-raachine. Master's report. Profits 
 and damages. Decree pro confesso. Motion to file an 
 answer. Discretion of the Circuit Court, no appeal lies. 
 Motion to dismiss for parting with interest. 20 Howard, 
 198. 
 
 Decker v. Griffeth. Billiard cushions. Infringement, par- 
 ticular patent. 13 Blatch. 187 ; 8 Off. Gaz. 944. 
 
 Decker v. Grote. Billiard cushions. Utility. Want of 
 novelty. Reissue not for same invention. 10 Blatch. 331 ; 
 6 Fisher, 143; 3 Off. Gaz. 65. 
 
 Decker v. New York Belting and Packing Co. Billiard 
 cushions. Jurisdiction. Waiver by corporation. 6 Fisher, 
 374; 3 Off. Gaz. 441. 
 
 Decker v. Silverbrandt. Billiard cushions. Infringement, 
 particular patent. 13 Blatch. 187; 8 Off. Gaz. 944. 
 
 De Florez v. Raynolds. Tin preserve-cans. Reissue not for 
 same invention. Original inventor, patent prima facie 
 evidence. Infringement. 14 Blatch. 505. 
 
 Delano v. Scott. Iron safes. Repeal of patent, scire facias. 
 Inventor. False suggestion. 1 Gilpin, 489; 1 Robb, 700. 
 
 Dennis v. Cross, Lantern. Infringement, uncertainty in 
 specification. 3 Bissell, 389; 6 Fisher, 138. 
 
 Dennis v. Eddy. Cultivators. Reissues. Construction of 
 patents. Infringement, cliange of form. Form may be the 
 essence of invention. 4 Fisher, 423. 
 3
 
 34 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Dennis v. Eddy. Mould-board for plows. Decree. 11 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 833. 
 Densmore v. Schofield. Petroleum car. Infringement, 
 
 combination, omission of one ingredient. 4 Fisher, 148. 
 
 Dental Vulcanite Co. (See Goodyear Dental Vulcan- 
 ite Co.) 
 
 Detmold v. Reeves. Economizing fuel. Patentability, 
 practical application not mere idea. 1 Fisher, 127. 
 
 Detroit Stove Works v. Michigan Stove Co. Base-burning 
 stove. Original inventor. Construction of patent. 12 Off. 
 Gaz. 189. 
 
 De Witt v. Elmira Nobles Manufacturing Co. Auger- 
 machine. Joint owners of patents. Jurisdiction. 5 Hun 
 (N. Y.), 301. 
 
 De Witt v. Elmira Nobles Manufacturing Co. Auger- 
 machine. Attempted recovery for infringement by one 
 half owner of other half. Above affirmed. 63 N. Y. 459. 
 
 Diamond Rock Borinq Co. (See American Diamond Rock 
 
 Boring Co.) 
 Dibble v. Augur. Sewing-machine. Assignment, who should 
 
 sue. Parties. Infringement, combination. 7 Blatch. 86. 
 
 Dibble v. Sibley. Sewing-machine. Infringement, combina- 
 tion, particular patent. 7 Blatch. 209. 
 
 Dickinson v. Hall. Flax-dressing. Note, void patent, 
 failure of consideration. 14 Pick. (Mass.) 217. 
 
 Dixon v. Moyer. Saddle-making. Plea of not guilty, what 
 plaintiff must prove. Experts as witnesses. Original in- 
 ventor. Prior use here, not in England. Date of invention. 
 Uncertainty in specification. 4 Wash. 68; 1 Robb, 324. 
 
 Dobson v. Campbell. Double reflecting baker. Recording 
 assignments, omission to state cured by verdict. 1 Sumner, 
 319; 1 Robb, 681. 
 
 Dodge v. Card. Fireplaces. Preliminary injunction, fair 
 doubt of infringement. 1 Bond, 393; 2 Fisher, 116. 
 
 Doherty v. Haynes. Table tray. Patentability. Original 
 inventor. Reissue not for same invention. 6 Off. Gaz. 118.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 35 
 
 Domestic Sewing Machine Co. v. Hatfield. Sewing- 
 machine. Note for assignment. Pleading. Considera- 
 tion. Statute. 58 Ind. 187. 
 
 DoRSEY Revolving Harvester Rake Co. v. Bradley Manu- 
 facturing Co. Harvester. Proper parties. Misjoinder. 
 Territorial assignments. Right to use. Licensee's rights. 
 Refusal of preliminary injunctions. 12 Blatch. 202. 
 
 DoRSEY Revolving Harvester Rake Co. v. Marsh. Har- 
 vester rakes. Existence of corporation. Plaintiff's title. 
 Extensions. Want of novelty. Reissue not for same in- 
 vention. Uncertainty in specification. Infringement. 6 
 Fisher, 387. 
 
 Doubleday v. Bracheo. Bonnets, &c. Construction of par- 
 ticular patent. 2 Fisher, 560. 
 
 Doubleday v. Sherman. Bonnets, &c. Defenses in answer. 
 Infringement of particular patent. 3 Fisher, 369. 
 
 Doubleday v. Sherman. Bonnets, &c. Construction of par- 
 ticular patent. 3 Fisher, 371. 
 
 Doubleday v. Sherman. Bonnets, &c. Motion to dissolve 
 injunction, laches and acquiescence. 6 Blatch. 513. 
 
 Doubleday v. Sherman. Bonnets, &c. Contempt for vio- 
 lating injunction, amount of punishment, poverty of de- 
 fendant. 4 Fisher, 253. 
 
 Doughty r. Day. Skirt-hoops. Construction of patents. Want 
 of novelty. Infringement. 9 Blatch. 262; 5 Fisher, 224. 
 
 Doughty v. West. Skeleton skirts. Original inventor. Un- 
 intentional issue, remedy. 6 Blatch. 429 ; 3 Fisher, 580. 
 
 Doughty v. West. Skeleton skirts. Special notice of evi- 
 dence in equity, waiver. Actions at law as evidence. 
 Jurisdiction. Preliminary injunctions. 2 Fisher, 553. 
 
 Doughty v. West, Bradley, and Cary Manufacturing Co. 
 Skeleton skirts. Hearings before Master on reference. 
 Taxation of costs, docket fees, fees of Masters and Com- 
 missioners. 4 Fisher, 318. 
 
 Draper v. Hudson. Type-blocks. Infringement. Want of 
 novelty. Right to an account. 1 Hohnes, 208; 6 Fisher, 
 327; 3 Off. Gaz. 354.
 
 36 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Draper v. Potomska Mills. Bobbins. Date of invention. 
 Original inventor. Patentability. Reissue not for same 
 invention. 13 Off. Gaz. 276. 
 
 Dubois v. Philadelphia and Wilmington Railroad Co. 
 
 Piers for bridges. Estoppel, former suit on want of 
 novelty. 5 Fisher, 208. 
 
 Dudley v. Mayhew. Cooking-stoves. No jurisdiction of 
 patents in State courts. Patentee no rights at common law. 
 3N.Y. 9. 
 
 Dunbar v. Harden. Churning-machine. Best evidence, 
 witness of a note. Want of novelty. Utility. 13 N. H. 
 311. 
 
 Dunbar v. Myers. Sawing-machine. Patentability. Dis- 
 claimers. Original inventor, patent prima facie evidence. 
 Right to obtain patent. What is invention? State of art. 
 Infringement, combination. 4 Otto, 187; 11 Off. Gaz. 35. 
 
 Dunham v. Indiana and St. Louis Railroad. Car-brake 
 shoes. Licensee of one of several owners. 7 Bissell, 223. 
 
 Dyer v. Rich. Loom. Promissory note. Want of novelty. 
 Date of a deed. Validity of patent. Oath. 1 Mete. 
 (Mass.) 180. 
 
 Dyson v. Danforth. Carding-engine. Worthless patent. 
 Failure to reissue. 4 Fisher, 133. 
 
 E. 
 
 Eames v. Cook. Boot-trees. Construction of particular patent. 
 Utility. 2 Fisher, 116. 
 
 Eames v. Godfrey. Boot-trees. Infringement, combination, 
 omission of one element. 1 Wall. 78. 
 
 Earl v. Dexter. Apparatus for oiling wool. Defense in 
 answer. Admission of evidence. Infringement. 1 Holmes, 
 412; 6 Off. Gaz. 729. 
 
 Earl v. Page. Shingle-machine. Abandonment. Note, 
 failure of consideration. 6 N. II. 477.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 37 
 
 Earl v. Sawyer. Shingle-machine. Warit of novelty. Pat- 
 entability. Drawings are part of specification. Rule of 
 damages. 4 Mason, 1; 1 Robb, 490. 
 
 Earle v. Harlow. Sheep shearing. Infringement, substan- 
 tially same mode of operation. 9 Off. Gaz. 1018. 
 
 Earth Closkt Co. v. Fenner. Water-closets. Preliminary 
 injunctions. Reissue not for same invention. Reissues 
 •without oath. 5 Fisher, 15; 
 
 Eastman v. Bodfish. Clapboard-machine. Time stated in 
 declaration is binding on complainant when material. 1 
 Story, 528; 2 Robb, 72. 
 
 Eddy v. Dennis. Cultivators. Reissue not for same inven- 
 tion. Infringement, combination, particular patent. 5 
 Otto, 560. 
 
 Edwards v. Richards. Buckets. Contract, assignment of 
 patent, parol negotiations. Wright (Ohio), 596. 
 
 Egbert v. Lippman. Corset steels. Two years' public use, 
 consent of inventor. 14 Off. Gaz. 822. 
 
 Eickermeyer Hat Body Machine Co. v. Pearce. Hat 
 bodies. Original inventor. Reissue not for same inven- 
 tion. Infringement. 10 Blatch. 403; 6 Fisher, 219; 3 Off. 
 Gaz. 150. 
 
 Elastic Fabrics Co. v. East Hampton Rubber Thread 
 Co. Machine. Caoutchouc. Want of novelty, particular 
 patent. 1 Holmes, 372; 5 Off. Gaz. 696. 
 
 Elastic Fabrics Co. v. East Hampton Rubber Thread 
 Co. Machine. Caoutchouc. Prior knowledge, degree re- 
 quired. 9 Off. Gaz. 745. 
 
 Elizabeth. (See City of Elizabeth.) 
 
 Elkins t>. Kenyon. Screw fork, hay elevator. Rescission of 
 contract. Warranty. Fraud. Useless article. 34 Wise. 
 93. 
 
 Ellithorp u. Robertson. Sewing-machine. Object of patent 
 laws. Prior invention. Patentability. Abandoned ex- 
 periments. Race of diligence. 4 Blatch. 307; 2 Fisher, 
 83.
 
 38 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Elm City Co. v. Wooster. Crimping-machines. Original 
 inventor. Infringement. Fraudulent misrepresentations 
 in patent. Corporation is in jurisdiction of United States 
 courts. 6 Fisher, 452; 4 Oif. Gaz. S3. 
 
 Elmer v. Fennel. Sash and blind machine. Note for assign- 
 ment of patent-right, want of consideration. Jurisdiction 
 of patents. 40 Maine, 430. 
 
 Ely v. McKay. Sewing-machine. Specific performance of 
 agreement to convey. 12 Allen (Mass.), 323. 
 
 Ely v. Monson and Brimfield Manufacturing Co. Cotton- 
 gin. Admissions. Practice, injunctions. Trial by jury. 
 Juries in equity. Questions 'for the court. 4 Fisher, 64. 
 
 Emerson v. Hogg. Steam-engine. Interpretation of patents 
 is for court. Several inventions in one patent. Uncer- 
 tainty in specification. Abandonment. Damages. 2 
 Blatch. 1. 
 
 Emerson v. Simm. Sawing-machine. Master's report, dam- 
 ages, profits. 6 Fisher, 281; 3 Off. Gaz. 293. 
 
 Emigh y. Chamberlain. Car-brakes. Assignment, license 
 to company, use by its assignee. 1 Bissell, 367; 2 Fisher, 
 192. 
 
 Emigh v. Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad. 
 Car-brakes. Licenses to railroads. Patentability, combina- 
 tion, old elements with new result. 1 Bissell, 400; 2 
 Fisher, 387. 
 
 Emmons v. Sladdin. Healds. Assignment of invention before 
 patent. What it conveys. 9 Off. Gaz. 352. 
 
 Engine Safety Truck Co. (See Locomotive Engine 
 Safety Truck Co.) 
 
 England v. Thompson. Tanning-machine. Licensee used 
 another tannery when only allowed one. 3 Cliff. 271. 
 
 Eppinger V. Richey. Tobacco. Want of novelty. Particular 
 patent. 14 Blatch. 307; 12 Off. Gaz. 714. 
 
 Estabrook v. Dunbar. Screw peg. Construction of patents, 
 technical terms, state of the art. 10 Off. Gaz. 909.
 
 LIST OP CASES. 39 
 
 EuNSON V. Dodge. Sawing-machine. Assignee's right after 
 extension. Purchase of infringer. 18 Wall. 414; 5 Off. 
 Gaz. 95. 
 
 EuNSON V. Peddie. Sawing-machine. Disclaimers. When 
 costs are not allowed. Original inventor. Infringement, 
 mechanical change. 8 Blatch. 440; 4 Fisher, 493. 
 
 Eureka Co. v. Bailey Washing Machine Co. Washing- 
 machine. Contract, estoppel. Fraud of government not 
 open in collateral proceeding. Notice of defense in answer. 
 11 Wall. 488. 
 
 Evans v. Chambers. Flour-machine. Nonsuit. Allegations 
 of petition for patent not recited. 2 Wash. 125; 1 Robb, 7. 
 
 Evans v. Eaton. Fiour-machiue. Private act. Analysis of 
 patent law. Patentability. Gist of the action. Original 
 inventor. General issue. Peters C. C. 322; 1 Robb, 68. 
 
 Evans v. Eaton. Flour-machine. Retrial on mandate, ob- 
 jection that judgment was still unreversed. Construction 
 of the patent. Original inventor. Bad patent. 3 Wash. 
 443; 1 Robb, 193. 
 
 Evans v. Eaton. Flour-machine. Evidence. Prior use. In- 
 terpretation of patent. Original inventor. Intention of 
 act of Congress. 3 Wheat. 454; 1 Robb, 243. 
 
 Evans v. Eaton. Flour-machine. Original inventor. Prior 
 use. Private act. Interested witnesses. 7 Wheat. 356; 
 1 Robb, 336. 
 
 Evans v. Hettick. Flour-machine. Evidence of declarations 
 by patentee. Taking depositions. Rebutting evidence. 
 Interested witnesses. Original inventor. Prior use. 3 
 Wash. 408; 1 Robb, 166; s. c. 7 ^^Tieat. 453; 1 Robb, 417. 
 
 Evans v. Jordan and Moreiiead. Flour-machine. Interpre- 
 tation of special act. 1 Brock. 248; 1 Robb, 20. 
 
 Evans v. Jordan and Morehead. Flour-machine. Effect of 
 
 Evans's special act on builders and users before its passage. 
 
 9 Cranch, 199; 1 Robb, 57. 
 Evans v. Kremer. Flour-machine. Original inventor. Plea 
 
 in bar by special notice under general issue. Peters C C. 
 
 215; 1 Robb, 66.
 
 40 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Evans v. Robinson. Flour-machine. Congress has exclusive 
 
 power to limit duration of patents. 1 Car. L. R. (N. C.) 
 
 209. 
 Evans v. Weiss. Flour-machine. Construction of Evans's 
 
 special act. Rights of first inventor. 2 Wash. 342; 1 
 
 Robb, 10. 
 EvARTS V. Ford. Shingle-machine. Construction of patent. 
 
 Infringement, mode of operation. 6 Fisher, 587; 5 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 58. 
 Extinguisher Co. (See Northwest Fire Extinguisher 
 
 Co.) 
 
 F. 
 
 Fairhaven Iron Works. (See Boston and Fairhaven 
 
 Iron Works.) 
 Fales v. Wentworth. Carpet lining. Preliminary injunc- 
 tions, doubt of validity of patent, state of the art. Patents 
 
 for improvements. 1 Holmes, 96; 5 Fisher, 302; 2 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 58. 
 Falls Co. (See Miller's Falls Co.) 
 Farrington v. Gregory. Boring-machine. Assignment 
 
 distinguished from license. What sale of machine carries. 
 
 4 Fisher, 221. 
 Farrington v. Water Commissioners. Boring-machine. 
 
 What rights sale of machine carries. Use after extension. 
 
 4 Fisher, 216. 
 Felting Co. (See Asbestos Felting Co. v. United States 
 
 AND Foreign Salamander Felting Co.) 
 Ferree v. Smith. Rock-drill. Contract, exclusive license 
 
 excludes patentee or grantor. 29 La. Ann. 811. 
 Filter Oil Co. (See National Filter Oil Co.) 
 
 Finch v. Rikeman. Cars. Power to compel production of 
 books. Discovery, when penalty would fall on defendant. 
 2 Blatch. 301. 
 
 Fire-arm Manufacturing Co. (See Boston Fire-arm 
 Manufacturing Co.)
 
 LIST OP CASES. 41 
 
 Fire Extinguisher Co. (See Northwest Fire Extin- 
 guisher Co.) 
 
 First National Bank v. Peck. Gas stove. Note, void 
 patent, is no consideration. 8 Kansas, 660. 
 
 Fisher v. Craig. Mining apparatus. Reissue not for same 
 invention. Prior knowledge. Infringement, combination, 
 mechanical substitute. 3 Sawyer, 69. 
 
 Fisk et al. v. Church. Suspender-ends. Prior knowledge and 
 original inventor are questions of fact. Burden of proof on 
 defendant. 5 Fisher, 540 ; 1 Off. Gaz. 634. 
 
 FiTZ w. Comey. Looms. Contract, in tei-pretation. 118 Mass. 
 100. 
 
 Flagg v. Church. (See Fisk et al. v. Church.) 
 
 Flood v. Hicks. Wagon-reach. Patentability. Name given 
 to structure is immaterial. 2 Bissell, 169; 4 Fisher, 156. 
 
 Florence Manufacturing Co. v. Boston Diatite Co. 
 Hand-mirror. Infringement, combination, particular pat- 
 ent. 1 Holmes, 415; 6 Off. Gaz. 728. 
 
 Florence Sewing Machine Co. v. Grover and Baker Sew- 
 ing Machine Co. Sewing-machine. Removal of suits to 
 United States court. Furtlier' instructions after verdict. 
 Joint recovery. License. Other licenses. 110 Mass. 70. 
 
 Florence Sewing Machine Co. v. Singer Sewing Machine 
 Co. Sewing-machine. Interpretation of agreement. Legal 
 rights only. Court will not proceed where final decree can- 
 not be reached. 8 Blatch. 113; 4 Fisher, 329. 
 
 Florence Sewing Machine Co. v. Singer Sew'ing Machine 
 Co. Sewing-machine. Money paid into court and claimed 
 by both parties. 8 Blatch. 177; 4 Fisher, 348. 
 
 Foote v. Frost. Bag-ties. Patent Commissioner not disquali- 
 fied from taking a patent after office expires. Want of 
 novelty. 14 Off. Gaz. 860. 
 
 Foote v. Silsby. Draft of stoves. Allowance of writ of error 
 in chambers. 1 Blatch. 542.
 
 42 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 FooTE V. SiLSBY. Regulating draft of stoves. Juryman taken 
 ill. at opening of case. Disclaimer. Admissibility of evi- 
 dence. Power to order nonsuit. Want of novelty by special 
 plea. No evidence allowed if plea is stricken out. Patent- 
 ability. Questions left to jury. Proper instractions. Mo- 
 tion for new trial for surprise and new evidence. Liberal 
 damages. 1 Blatch. 445. 
 
 FooTE II. SiLSBY. Draft of stoves. Feigned issue. Newly 
 discovered evidence. 1 Blatch. 545. 
 
 FooTE V. SiLSBY. Draft of stoves. Charge to jury. Patent- 
 ability. Want of novelty. What is required to anticipate 
 a patent. 2 Blatch. 260. 
 
 FooTE V. SiLSBY. Draft of stoves. Reference to Master. 
 Parties as witnesses. 3 Blatch. 507. 
 
 Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co. Coffins. Surrender of patent 
 withdrawn. Effect of reissues. Original inventor. Patent 
 prima facie evidence. Infringement. Reissue not for same 
 invention. Nonjoinder of parties. 2 Cliff. 379. 
 
 FoRBUSH V. Bradford. Looms. Preliminary injunctions, 
 discretion of court. Account. 1 Fisher, 317. 
 
 FoRBUSH V. Cook. Power looms. Claims for combination. 
 Charge to jury. Want of novelty, cheapness, new effect as 
 evidence of novelty. 2 Fisher, 668. 
 
 Forsyth v. Clapp. Wringer-roll. Reissue not for same in- 
 vention. Infringement, combination, different function of 
 a part. 1 Holmes, 278; 6 Fisher, 528; 4 Off. Gaz. 527. 
 
 Foss V. Herbert. Planing-machine. Charge to jury. Claims 
 for whole and parts. Theory of patentee is of no account. 
 Drawing is part of specification. Patents for improve- 
 ment. Infringement, same purpose. 1 BisseU, 121; 2 
 Fisher, 31. 
 
 Foss V. Richardson. Elastic horseshoe. Deed of patent- 
 right. Suit to recover purchase-money. 15 Gray (Mass.), 
 303. 
 
 Foster v. Lindsay. Repeal of patent. Power of court to can- 
 cel patents. 3 Dillon, 126; 7 Off. Gaz. 514.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 43 
 
 Foster r. Lindsay. Interfering patents. Power of court in 
 such case by statute to examine and cancel. 8 Ofi. Gaz. 
 1032. 
 
 Foster v. Moore. Sole-cutter. Eight years exclusive use. 
 Preliminary injunctions. Infringement, well-known sub- 
 stitutes. How combinations are infringed. 1 Curtis, 
 279. 
 
 Fountain Pkx Co. (See Morse Fountain Pen Co.) 
 
 FoY V. Hunter. Corset skirt-protector. Defenses waived. 
 Decree. Three cases. 9 Off. Gaz. 5i2. 
 
 Francis v. Mellor. Inking rollers. Patents construed liber- 
 ally. Claims, how construed. Reissue not for same inven- 
 tion. Infringement, composition. Burden of proof. 5 
 Fisher, 153; 1 Off. Gaz. 48. 
 
 French u. Rogers. Telegraph. Patents for an "art." Du- 
 plicate drawings. Dating of yura^ Date of foreign patents. 
 Reissue not for same invention. Weight of Commissioner's 
 decision. More than one reissue. Reissue must be broader 
 than original. 1 Fisher, 133. 
 
 Frink v. Petry. Gas reflector. IMotion to dissolve injunction. 
 Want of novelty. 11 Blatch. 422; 5 Off. Gaz. 201. 
 
 FiiuiT House Co. (See Chicago Fruit House Co.) 
 
 Fruit Jar Co. (See Consolidated Fruit Jar Co.) 
 
 Fry v. Quinlan. Surrender and reissue ends a suit. 13 
 Blatch. 205. 
 
 Fuller v. Goodrich. Sewing-machine. Interpretation of 
 particular patent. AVant of novelty. Construction of 
 patent law. Mechanical changes. 6 Bissell, 203. 
 
 Fuller v. Goodrich. Sewing-machine. Infringement of com- 
 binations. Results not patentable. Want of novelty. 
 Superseding a patent. Above affirmed. 4 Otto, 299; 11 
 Off. Gaz. 597. 
 
 Fuller v. Yentzer. Sewing-machine. Interpretation of par- 
 ticular patents. Want of novelty. Construction of patent 
 law. Mechanical changes. 6 BisseU, 203.
 
 44 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Fuller v. Yentzer. Sewing-machine. Result not patent- 
 able. Infringements of combinations, mere substitutes. 
 Burden of proof. Patent prima facie evidence of original 
 inventor. Above affirmed. 4 Otto, 288; 11 Off. Gaz. 551. 
 
 Fuller v. Yentzer. Sewing-machine. Infringements of 
 
 combinations. Results not patentable. Want of novelty. 
 
 Superseding a patent. Above affirmed. 4 Otto, 299; 11 
 
 Off. Gaz. 597. 
 FuzzARD Wadding Manufacturing Co. v. Dickinson. 
 
 Wadding. Infringement, combination, equivalents. 6 
 
 Blatch. 80; 3 Fisher, 289. 
 
 G. 
 
 Gale v. Nourse. Straw-cutter. Interpretation of agreement. 
 15 Gray (Mass.), 300. 
 
 Gallahue y. Butterfield. Pegging shoes. Reissue not for 
 same invention. Want of novelty. Abandoned experi- 
 ments. Infringement, combination. 10 Blatch. 232; 6 
 Fisher, 203; 2 Off. Gaz. 645. 
 
 Galpin v. Atwater. Sewing-machine. Warranty. Written 
 contracts, parol warranty. Assignments of patents must be 
 in writing. 29 Conn. 93. 
 
 Gardiner v. Howe. Sails of vessels. Infringement by Amer- 
 ican boats on the high seas. 2 Cliff. 462. 
 
 Gardner v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. Artificial 
 gums and palates. Compromise. Decree of affirmance 
 vacated. Appeal dismissed. Mandate recalled. 6 Fisher, 
 329 ; 3 Off. Gaz. 295. 
 
 Garratt v. Seibert. Lubricators. Patents for combinations. 
 7 Pac. L. R. 116; 22 Pitts. L. J. 18. 
 
 Garratt v. Seibert. Lubricators. Interfering patent. 
 Question is who is first inventor. Decree affirmed. 8 
 Otto, 75; 15 Off. Gaz. 383. 
 
 Garretson v. Clark. Mop-head. Master's report, profits, 
 damages. Value of improvements. 14 Off. Gaz. 485. 
 
 Gates v. Benson. Abandonment. 3 A. L. T. (U. S.) R. 113.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 45 
 
 Gatling v. Newell. Rescission of contracts. English pat- 
 ents. 9 Ind. 572. 
 Gauge Co. (See United States Gauge Co.) 
 
 Gay v. Cornell. Lead-pipe machinery. Assignments after 
 rejection of patent. Recording. 1 Blatch. .506. 
 
 Gaylor v. Wilder. Fireproof safes. Assignments before 
 issue. Want of novelty. Abandoned experiments. Orig- 
 inal inventor. Lost arts. 10 How. 477. 
 
 Gear v. Grosvenor. Lathe, irregular forms. Fraud not open 
 in collateral proceedings. Extension. Patent prima facie 
 evidence that preliminaries were done legally. Assignments 
 before issue and before extension. Want of novelty. Con- 
 struction of assignments. Jurisdiction of Commissioner. 
 1 Holmes, 215; 6 Fisher, 314; 3 Off. Gaz. 380. 
 
 Gear v. Holmes. Lathe, irregular forms. Extension of pat- 
 ents. Habendum clause of assignment. Preliminary in- 
 junctions, untested patents. 6 Fisher, 595. 
 
 Geier v. Goetinger. Impervious bungs. Construction of 
 patent, presumption of law, prior use, state of the art. 
 Evidence not in answer. Printed publications. 7 Off. Gaz. 
 563. 
 
 Geiger v. Cook. Forge-hammer. Sealed note. Debt. No 
 consideration. Want of novelty. 3 W. & S. (Penn.) 266. 
 
 Giant Powder Co. (See Atlantic Giant Powder Co.) 
 
 Gibson v. Barnard. Woodworth's planing-machine. Con- 
 tract partly executed, infringement under it. 1 Blatch. 
 388. 
 
 Gibson v. Betts. Woodworth's planing-machine. Prelim- 
 inary injunction, won't go into questions of originality or 
 validity of patent. 1 Blatch. 1G3. 
 
 Gibson v. Cook. Woodworth's planing-machine. Assign- 
 ments before extension. Recording assignments. Bona 
 Jide purchasers. 2 Bhitch. 144. 
 
 Gibson v. Gifford. Woodworth's planing-machine. Special 
 act, assignees' rights, fraud in obtaining, remedy. 1 
 Blatch. 529.
 
 46 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 GiBsox V. Harris. AVoodworth's planing-machine. Special 
 act, authority of commissioner. Infringement, combina- 
 tion. 1 Blatch. 167. 
 
 Gibson v. Van Dresar. Woodworth's planing-machine. In- 
 fringement, combination, "analogous device," colorable 
 imitation. Preliminary injunctions. 1 Blatch. 532. 
 
 Gibson v. Woodworth. "Woodworth's planing-machine. No 
 jurisdiction in State courts. 8 Paige (N. Y.), 132. 
 
 Gilbert and Barker Manufacturing Co. v. Bussing. Car- 
 buretting air. Suit against purchaser after preliminary 
 injunction against maker. Discussion of rights of parties. 
 12 Blatch. 426 ; 8 Off. Gaz. U4. 
 
 Gilbert and Barker Manufacturing Co. v. Tirrell. Car- 
 buretting air. Patentability, change of location. Original 
 inventor. Infringement. 12 Blatch. 144; 8 Off. Gaz. 2. 
 
 Gilbert and Barker Manufacturing Co. v. Walworth 
 Manufacturing Co. Carburetting air. Want of novelty. 
 Patentability, change of location. New combination, new 
 result. 9 Off. Gaz. 746. 
 
 Gill v. Wells. Hat-body machine. New combinations of 
 old elements. Reissue not for same invention. What re- 
 issues are for, and what they must contain. Omission of 
 one element of combination. Equivalents. Questions of 
 fact. Policy of such rules. Wells v. Gill reversed. 22 
 Wall. 1; 6 Off. Gaz. 881. 
 
 Gillespie v. Cummings. Brooms. Pleading, multifarious- 
 ness. 3 Sawyer, 259. 
 
 GiLMORE V. Aiken. Dressing millstones. Assignment amount- 
 ing to quitclaim. 118 Mass. 94. 
 
 GiLMORE y. GoLAY. Dressing millstones. Decree. 3 Fisher, 522. 
 
 Glue Co. (See Milligan and Higgins Glue Co.) 
 
 Godfrey v. Eames. Boot-trees. Continuity of application, 
 withdrawing first and putting in another. 1 Wall. 317. 
 
 Goff v. Stafford. Arranging tape. Patent suits in law 
 and equity. Original inventor. Printed publications. 
 Foreign patents. Burden of proof of infringement. Term 
 of patents. 14 Off. Gaz. 748.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 47 
 
 Gold v. Ives. "Warming houses. New trials. Recoupment. 
 Nominal damages. 29 Conn. 119. 
 
 Gold and Silvkr Ore Separatixg Co. v. United States 
 Disintegrating Co. Stoves. What interference is. 3 
 FLsher, 489. 
 
 Gong Bell Manufacturing Co. v. Clark. Child's toy. 
 Want of novelty. Reissue not for same invention. In- 
 fringement. 13 Off. Gaz. 274. 
 
 Goodyear v. Allyn. India-rubber. Patented articles not 
 marked "patented." Misjoinder of plaintiffs. 6 Blatch. 
 3;3; .3 Fisher, 374. 
 
 Goodyear v. Berry. India-rubber. Authority of prior deci- 
 sions. Reissue not for same invention. Liberal construc- 
 tion of patents. Denial of infringement must be direct. 
 2 Bond, 189; 3 Fisher, 439. 
 
 Goodyear v. Beverly Rubber Co. India-rubber. Formal 
 
 objections. Infringement, process. Article sold passes out 
 of monopoly of patent. 1 Cliff. 348. 
 
 Goodyear v. Bishop, India-rubber. Suit by licensee is prop- 
 erly brought in name of patentee, and will not be discon- 
 tinued because he releases tlie defendants. 2 Fisher, 96. 
 
 Goodyear v. Bishop. India-rubber. Charge to jury. To get 
 at damages the jury must find facts. Damages, license 
 fee. 2 Fisher, 154. 
 
 Goodyear ik Bourn. India-rubber. Dissolution of paiticular 
 injunction. 3 Blatch. 266. 
 
 Goodyear v. Cary. India-rubber. Interpretation of agree- 
 ments. Admissions of parties. "Renewed" means "ex- 
 tended." 4 Blatch. 271. 
 
 Goodyear v. Chaffee. India-rubber. Irregularity of service 
 is waived by appearance. Out of jurisdiction. 3 Blatch. 
 268. 
 
 Goodyear v. Congress Rubber Co. India-rubber. Inter- 
 pretation of license. 3 Blatch. 419. 
 
 Goodyear v. Day. India-rubber. Trial by jury in equity. 
 Province of court. Want of novelty. 2 Wall. Jr. 283.
 
 48 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Goodyear v. Dunbar. India-rubber. Granting injunctions. 
 Bonajide issue. 3 Wall. Jr. 310; 1 Fisher, 472. 
 
 Goodyear v. Evans. India-rubber. Infringement, process, 
 particular patent. 6 Blatch. 121; 3 Fisher, 390. 
 
 Goodyear v. Hills. India-rubber. Proper parties. Dedica- 
 tion to public. Practice. Preliminary injunctions. 3 
 Fisher, 134. 
 
 Goodyear v. Housinger. India-rubber. Preliminary injunc- 
 tions, prior decisions. License. Laches. Conditional 
 injunctions. 2 Bissell, 1 ; 3 Fisher, 147. 
 
 Goodyear v. Hullihen. India-rubber. Jurisdiction in 
 equity. Administrator not to be proved. Seal of notary. 
 Parties to bill. Lack of patent lawyers as reason for delay. 
 Reasons for patent law. Reasons for preliminary injunc- 
 tions. 2 Hughes, 492; 3 Fisher, 251. 
 
 Goodyear v. Lunsford. India-rubber. Jurisdiction in equity. 
 Administrator not to be proved. Seal of notary. Parties 
 to bill. Lack of patent lawyers as reason for delay. Rea- 
 sons for patent law. Reasons for preliminary injunctions. 
 2 Hughes, 492. 
 
 Goodyear v. Matthews. Hard metal buttons. Prior use 
 under act of 1793, original inventor. Patentee of part. 1 
 Paine, 300; 1 Robb, 50. 
 
 Goodyear v. McBarney. India-rubber. Suits by licensee in 
 name of patentee. 3 Blatch. 32. 
 
 Goodyear \k Mullee. India-rubber. Attachment for con- 
 tempt. Violations of injunctions. Infringement. 5 Blatch. 
 429 ; 3 Fisher, 209. 
 
 Goodyear v. Mullee. India-rubber. Preliminary injunc- 
 tion, long use, previous decision. 3 Fisher, 420. 
 
 Goodyear v. Mullee. India-rubber. Reference to Master. 
 Intent of defendant to violate injunction. 5 Blatch. 463; 3 
 Fisher, 259. 
 
 Goodyear v. New Jersey Central Railroad. India-rubber. 
 Preliminary injunction, doubt of infringement, long use 
 and acquiescence, proper parties. Infringement, process. 
 Patents for processes. 2 Wall. Jr. 356 ; 1 Fisher, 626.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 49 
 
 Goodyear v. New York Gutta-percha Co. India-rubber. 
 Original inventor. Want of novelty. Infringement, com- 
 position. 2 Fisher, 312. 
 
 Goodyear v. Puelps. India-rubber. Directors and agents of 
 corporations are responsible for infringements. 3 Blatch. 
 91. 
 
 Goodyear v. Providence Rubber Co. India-rubber. Mo- 
 tion for feigned issues. Powers of circuit courts. Parties, 
 executors. Reissue not for same invention. Extension, 
 false representations. Original inventor. Infringement, 
 license. 2 Cliff. 351 ; 2 Fisher, 499. 
 
 Goodyear v. Rust. India-rubber. Infringement, particular 
 patent. 6 Blatch. 229; 3 Fisher, 456. 
 
 Goodyear v. Toby. India-rubber. No certificate of counsel 
 with plea. Pleading, parties. 6 Blatch. 130. 
 
 Goodyear v. Union Rubber Co. India-rubber. License, 
 jurisdiction. Citizenship. 4 Blatch. 63. 
 
 Goodyear v. "Wait. India-rubber. Authority of Commissioner 
 to reissue. Patentability. Two reissues. Clearness in speci- 
 fication. Dedication to public. 5 Blatch. 468; 3 Fisher, 
 242. 
 
 Goodyear v. Wingerter. India-rubber. Jurisdiction in 
 equity. Administrator not to be proved. Seal of notary. 
 Parties to bill. Lack of patent lawyers as reason for delay. 
 Reasons for patent law. Reasons for preliminary injunc- 
 tions. 2 Hughes, 492. 
 
 Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Benjamin. Artificial 
 gums, &c. Settled by prior decisions. 6 Off. Gaz. 154. 
 
 Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis. Artificial 
 gums, &c. Prior decisions. Want of novelty. Infringe- 
 ment, substantial equivalents. 12 Off. Gaz. Oct. 2, i. 
 
 Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Dickerson. 13. Off. 
 Gaz. 325. (See Same v. Osgood.) 
 
 Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Evans. ^ (See Good- 
 year V. Evans.) 
 
 1 Probably a misprint in 3 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 390. 
 4
 
 50 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Goodyear Dextal Vulcanite Co. v. Flagg. Artificial 
 gums, &c. Prior decisions settle it. 9 Off. Gaz. 153. 
 
 Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Gardner. Artificial 
 gums, &c. Interpretation of written instruments. Want 
 of novelty. Original inventor. Patent /)/-»na /aeze evidence. 
 Infringement. 3 Cliff. 408; 4 Fisher, 224. 
 
 Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Ireland. Artificial 
 gums, &c. Prior decisions settle it. 6 Off. Gaz. 154. 
 
 Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Lowe. 13 Off. Gaz. 325. 
 (See Same v. Osgood.) 
 
 Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Osgood. Artificial 
 gums, &c. Taxation of costs, in several cases with but one 
 hearing. 13 Off. Gaz. 325. 
 
 Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Perry. Artificial 
 gums, &c. Prior decisions settle it. 6 Off. Gaz. 154. 
 
 Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Preterre. Artificial 
 gums, &c. AVhat are infringements of the Cummings 
 patent. 14 Off. Gaz. 346. 
 
 Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Root. Artificial gums, 
 &c. Prior decisions settle it. 6 Off. Gaz. 154. 
 
 Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Schemerhorn. Arti- 
 ficial gums, &c. Prior decisions. 6 Off. Gaz. 154. 
 
 Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Smith. Artificial 
 gums, &c. Interpretation of particular patent. Reissue 
 not for same invention. Original inventor. Public use. 
 Want of novelty. Utility. 1 Holmes, 354; 5 Off. Gaz. 585. 
 
 Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Van Antwerp. Arti- 
 ficial gums, &c. Master's report. Profits and damages 
 under the patent act. 9 Off. Gaz. 497. 
 
 Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Wetherber. Arti- 
 ficial gums, &c. Corporation as plaintiff. Proceedings of 
 Commissioner in granting reissues. Infringement. Origi- 
 nal inventor. Abandonment. Reissue not for same in- 
 vention. 2 Cliff. 555 ; 3 Fisher, 87.
 
 LIST OP CASES. 51 
 
 Goodyear Dextal Vulcaxite Co. v. Willis. Artificial 
 gums, &c. Bound by previous decisions. Circuit courts form 
 one system. Patentability. Abandonment. Foreign pat- 
 ent by third person. 7 Off. Gaz. 41. 
 
 Gorham v. Mixter. Hat-machine. Tnfringement, change of 
 form, mechanical equivalents. 1 Am. L. J. (8 Penn. L. J.) 
 539. 
 
 Gottfried v. Bartiiolomae & Roesixg. Pitching bai-rels. 
 Want of novelty, particular patent. 13 Off. Gaz. 1128. 
 
 Gould, Hexry W., Ex parte. Advertising apparatus. Ap- 
 peal from Commissioner. Refusal to issue a patent. Com- 
 bination. 1 McArthur, 410; 5 Off. Gaz. 121. 
 
 Gould v. Ballard. Trunks. Reissue not for same invention. 
 Want of novelty, particular patent. 13 Off. Gaz. 1081. 
 
 Gould v. Rees. Steam-engines. Patentability. Infringe- 
 ment, combination, equivalents. 15 Wall. 187; 2 Off. Gaz. 
 624. 
 
 Gould's Maxufacturixg Co. v. Cowixg. Gas-pumps. Mas- 
 ter's report, damages. Burden of proof. 12 Blatch. 243. 
 8 Off. Gaz. 277. 
 
 Gould's Maxufacturixg Co. v. Cowixg. Gas-pumps. 
 Master's report, damages, profits. Nominal damages. 14 
 Blatch. 315; 12 Off. Gaz. 942. 
 
 GowER, Ex PARTE. Pneumatic signal telephones. Interferences 
 are for Commissioner. 15 Off. Gaz. 828. 
 
 Graham v. Gammox. Harvesters. Suggestion not patentable. 
 Want of novelty. Infringement. 7 Bissell, 49. 
 
 Graham v. Masox. Looms. Reissue not for same invention. 
 Clearness of pleadings in equity. Patent prima facie evi- 
 dence. Want of novelty. Burden of proof of infringement. 
 5 Fisher, 1. 
 
 Graham r. !Masox. Looms. Master's report. Rule of dam- 
 ages. Selling the parts of infringing meclianism. 1 Holmes. 
 88; 5 Fisher, 290; 1 Off. Gaz. G09.
 
 62 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Grant v. Raymond. Hat-machine. Uncertainty in specifi- 
 cation. Power of Secretary of State of United States to 
 accept a surrender and reissue. Object of patent law. 
 Reissue not for same invention. Public use. 6 Peters, 218; 
 1 Robb, 604. 
 
 Gray v. Hulshizer. Horse-power. Decree. 13 Off. Gaz. 
 X, Jan. 15. 
 
 Gray w. James. Nail-machines. Charge to jury. Infringement, 
 mode of operation. Original inventor. Defective specifi- 
 cation. Abandonment. Peters C. C. 394; 1 Robb, 120. 
 
 Gray v. James. Nail-machines. Motion for new trial. Ver- 
 dict against evidence. Want of novelty. Declaration 
 must show title. Defects cured by verdict. Peters C. C. 
 476; 1 Robb, 140. 
 
 G RE AXON V. Griffin. Wood pavement. State authority to 
 use a patented article. 4 Abb. n. s. (N. Y.) 310. 
 
 Greely, Benjamin, Ex parte. Suspender-straps. Rejection 
 of patent. Want of novelty. Construction of particular 
 patent. 1 Holmes, 284; 6 Fisher, 575; 4 Off. Gaz. 612. 
 
 Green v. Willard Improved Barrel Co. Lister. Recoup- 
 ment. Unliquidated damages. Inventions by employe. 
 State courts have no jurisdiction over validity of patents. 
 1 Mo. App. 202. 
 
 Gkegerson v. Imlay. Car-trucks. Preliminary injunction. 
 Contract void for champerty and maintenance. 4 Blatch. 
 503. 
 
 Groff v. Hansel. Sash-lock. Note, false representations, 
 competency of defense. 33 Md. 161. 
 
 Grosjean v. Peck, Stow, and Wilcox Co. Spoons and forks. 
 Interpretation of particular patent. Validity of reissues. 
 Utility. Infringement. 11 Blatch. 54. 
 
 Grover and Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Butler. Sewing- 
 machine. Note. State legislation in patents. 53 Ind. 
 454. 
 
 Gkover and Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Sloat. Sewing- 
 machine. Corporations in other States. Defenses in 
 answer. Nonjoinder of parties. Want of novelty. 2 
 ■ Fisher, 112.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 53 
 
 Grover and Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Williams. Sew- 
 ing-machine. Preliminaiy injunctions. Ex parte affidavits. 
 Prima facie rights of patentee. Acquiescence. Previous 
 suits. License held by plaintiffs. Infringement, combina- 
 tion. 2 Fisher, 133. 
 
 GuiDET V. Barber. Stone pavement. Reissue not for same 
 invention. Patentability. Want of novelty. Notice of 
 defense in answer. 5 Off. Gaz. 149. 
 
 GuiDET V. Palmer (or City of Brooklyn). Stone pavement. 
 Preliminary injunctions. Acquiescence, mere lapse of 
 time. lOBlatch. 217; 6 Fisher, 82. 
 
 GuiDET V. City of Brooklyn. Stone pavement. Infringe- 
 ment, particular patent. 13 Off. Gaz. 773. 
 GuNSTOCK Co. (See Blanchard Gunstock Co.) 
 
 Gutta-percha and Rubber Manufacturing Co. v. Good- 
 year Rubber Co. India-rubber. What bill should show. 
 Knowledge of witness better than opinion. 3 Sawyer, 51:2. 
 
 GuYON V. Serrell. Compound lever. Damages, three times 
 actual damages. Disclaimer after suit brought. No costs 
 allowed. Power of court to increase damages. 1 Blatch. 
 244. 
 
 H. 
 
 Hailes v. Van Wormer. Stoves. Interpretation of particular 
 patent. Combination of old elements with new results dis- 
 tinguished from a mere aggregation of old elements and 
 results. 7 Blatch. 443. 
 
 Hailes v. Van Wormer. Stoves. Patentability, new com- 
 bination, new result. Want of novelty. Infringement. 
 • Above affirmed. 20 Wall. 353 ; 5 Off. Gaz. 89. 
 
 Hair Co. (See Muscan Hair, &c. Co.) 
 
 Hale v. Stimpson. Shaping irregular wood. Comparison of 
 the machines. Combination of old parts. What is infringe- 
 ment? 2 Fisher, 5G5. 
 
 Hall v. Bird. Stretching chains. Utility. Machine made 
 and put in cellar held an abandoned invention. 6 Blatch. 
 438; 3 Fisher, 595.
 
 54 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Hall v. Orvis. Filter, Rescission of contract, false repre- 
 sentations. 35 Iowa, 366. 
 
 Hall v. Speer. Plows. Practice, injunctions. Not granted 
 where there has been long adverse possession by defendants. 
 Recording assignments. 6 Pitts. L. J. 403. 
 
 Hall v. Wiles. Brick-press. Charge to jury. Disclaimer 
 not filed before suit brought, no costs allowed. Unreason- 
 able negligence. Result not patentable, but important iu 
 cases of improvements of old contrivance. 2 Blatch. 194. 
 
 Hall & Co. v. Jones. Vehicle hubs. Interpretation of par- 
 ticular patent. 14 Off. Gaz. 378. 
 
 Halsey v. Garlick. Wagon-gearing. Particular patent. 
 Decree. 12 Off. Gaz. 1026. 
 
 Hamilton v. Ives. Saw-mills. Motion for new trial. Draw- 
 ings a part of specification. Effect of drawings in limiting 
 the patent. New combinations of old elements. Interpre- 
 tation of particular patent. 6 Fisher, 244 ; 3 Off. Gaz. 30. 
 
 Hamilton v. Kingsbury. Saw-mill. Territorial assignment. 
 "Legal representatives" includes "assignees." 14 Off. 
 Gaz. 448. 
 
 Hamilton v. Simons. Contempt. After injunction, defend- 
 ant can not leave out some parts and go ahead. Advice of 
 counsel is no justification. 5 Bissell, 77. 
 
 Hammer v. Barnes. Ale-brewing. Parties. Patents pro- 
 tected in State courts. 26 How. (N. Y.) 174, 
 
 Hammond v. Organ Co. Melodeons, &c. License as a defense. 
 Intei-pretation of contract. 1 Holmes, 296 ; 6 Fisher, 599 ; 
 5 Off. Gaz. 31. 
 
 Hammond v. Organ Co. Melodeons, &c. License as a de- 
 fense. Interpretation of contract. Above affirmed. 2 
 Otto, 724. 
 
 Hank's Case. New drawings may be added in reissue. 2 
 A. L. T. (U, S.) R. 129. 
 
 Hardesty v. Smith. Lamp. Note, consideration. Pleas held 
 bad on demurrer. 3 Ind. 39.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 65 
 
 Harlow v. Putnam. Grate-bars. Exclusive license, void 
 patent, no consideration. 124 Mass. 553. 
 
 Uarmox v. Bird. Threshing-machine. Xote, consideration, 
 misnomer of invention iu conveyance. 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 
 113. 
 
 Hart, Bhven, and Mead Manufacturing Co. v. Sargeant 
 & Co. Carpenters' squares. Want of novelty. Infringe- 
 ment. 14 Oif . Gaz. 45. 
 
 Hartshorn v. Almy. Curtain-fixtures. Interpretation of 
 particular patents. Infringement. 1 Holmes, 493 ; 8 Off. 
 Gaz. 94. 
 
 Hartshorn v. Day. India-rubber. License as a defense. 
 Interpretation of contract. Attempt to rescind. Right to 
 rescind. 19 How. 211. 
 
 Hartshorn v. Shorey. Curtain-fixtures. Want of novelty. 
 Infringement. Particular patent. 9 Off. Gaz. 595. 
 
 Hartshorn r. Tripp. Curtain-fixtures. Same mode of opera- 
 tion as infringement. 7 Blatch, 120. 
 
 Harvester Co. (See Dorsey Revolving Harvester 
 Rake Co.) 
 
 Harwood v. Mill River Woollen Manufacturing Co. 
 Oiling wool. Foreign patents met by showing their worth- 
 lessness. Interpretation of particular patent. 3 Fisher, 526. 
 
 Haselden v. Ogden. Pumps. Charge to jury. Private use 
 not known to public does not anticipate the patent. Orig- 
 inal inventor. What infringement is. 3 Fisher, 378. 
 
 Haskell v. Shoe Machinery Manufacturing Co. Sewing- 
 machines. Original inventor, patent prima facie evidence. 
 15 Off. Gaz. 509. 
 
 Hat Blocking Machine Co. (See Eickermeyer Hat Body 
 Machine Co.) 
 
 Hathaway v. Roach. Cooking-stove. Right to costs, dis- 
 cretion of court, models, copies of patents, fees of witnesses 
 during a few days' suspension. 2 W. & M. 63. 
 
 Haven v. Brown. Bedstead-fastenings. General allegation 
 of infringement in bill, without specifying particulars, is 
 good. 6 Fisher, 413.
 
 56 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Haaves v. Antisdel. Hotel-register. AVant of novelty. 
 Amount of proof of prior use and knowledge required. 8 
 Off. Gaz. 685. 
 
 Hawes v. Cook. Hotel-register. Prior decisions. 5 Off. Gaz. 
 493. 
 
 Hawes v. Gage. Hotel-register. Charge to jury. Damages, 
 profits. Construction, of particular patent. 5 Off. Gaz. 
 494. 
 
 Hawes v. Twogood. Assignment of error in Iowa. Admis- 
 sibility of evidence. Note, warranty of patent. 12 Iowa, 
 582. 
 
 Hawes v. Washburne, Hotel-register. Charge to jury. 
 Patent for invention, and not for design. Patent prima 
 facie evidence of novelty. Want of novelty. Infringement, 
 intention. 5 Off. Gaz. 491. 
 
 Haavkes v. Remington. Nickel-plating. Identity of two 
 patents not apparent on their face is for jury. Ill Mass. 
 171. 
 
 Hawks v. Swett. Stoves. Pleading, admissibility of decree of 
 United States courts. Assignment, contract to pay royalty, 
 void patent, not estopped. 4 Hun (N. Y.), 146 ; 6 Th. & C. 
 (N. Y.) 529. 
 
 Hawley v. Mitchell. Felting-machine. Machines sold by 
 assignee pass out of monopoly of patent, those by licensee 
 do not. 1 Holmes, 42; 4 Fisher, 388; 1 Off. Gaz. 306. 
 
 Hayden v. Suffolk Manufacturing Co. Cotton-cleaners. 
 Charge to jury. What patents are. Prima facie evidence 
 of original inventor. Want of novelty. Memory of man 
 as testimony on point of anticipation. Province of jury. 
 Burden of proof of old machine. Infringement. 4 Fisher, 
 86. 
 
 Hays v. Sulsor. Drain-plows. Charge to jury. Utility. 
 Want of novelty. Notice of time and place of prior use. 
 Printed publications. Infringement, damages. 1 Bond, 
 279; 1 Fisher, 532. 
 
 Head v. Stevens. Cider-mill. Defective specification. 19 
 Wend. (N. Y.) 411.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 57 
 
 Heaton v. Quintard. Ships' armor. Patented article put on 
 government vessel by government's order is no infringement 
 in the workman. 7 Blatch. 73. 
 
 Hecker v. Rumford Chemical Works. (See Attorney- 
 General EX REL. Hecker.) 
 
 Heilner v. Battin. Coal-screener. Estoppel by covenant to 
 dispute the validity of patent. Want of novelty. Reissue 
 not for same invention, question for jury. Agreement of 
 counsel about evidence may not be accepted by the com-t. 
 Authority of partners. 27 Penn. St. 517. 
 
 Heinrich v. Luther. Tailors' shears. Patent is /)nma yaae 
 evidence of right of patentee. Want of novelty. 6 McLean, 
 345. 
 
 Helm v. First National Bank of Huntington. State 
 legislation in patent cases. 43 lud. 167. 
 
 Henderson v. Cleveland Co-operative Stove Co. Coal 
 stove. Construction of particular patent. Claims for re- 
 sults. Abandonment. Infringement. 12 Off. Gaz. 4. 
 
 Hendrie v. Sayles. Car-brake. Assignment before issue. 
 Issue to assignee. Assignee has right to get extension. 
 8 Otto, 546. 
 
 Henry v. Francestown Soapstone Stove Co. Stoves. 
 Want of novelty. Public use for tvro years. Waiting dur- 
 ing experiments. Non-joinder of parties. 9 Off. Gaz. 408. 
 
 Henry v. Providence Tool Co. Fire-arms. Expiration of 
 foreign patents. Vigilance. Construction of act of Con- 
 gress. Extensions. Discretion of Commissioner. Public 
 use. 14 Off. Gaz. 855. 
 
 Herbert v. Adams. Bedsteads. Assignment before issue is 
 good. After assignment, assignee sues, not patentee. 4 
 Mason, 15; 1 Robb, 505. 
 
 Herring v. Gage. Cooling metal, &c. Reissue not for same 
 invention. Reissues in general. Original inventor. Want 
 of novelty. Infringement. 14 Blatch. 293; 12 Off. Gaz. 
 753.
 
 68 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Herring v. Gas Consumers' Association. Infringement by 
 joint owner. Damages. 13 Off. Gaz. 637. 
 
 Herring v. Nelson. Cooling metal, &c. Reissue not for 
 same invention. Reissues in general. Original inventor. 
 Want of novelty. Infringement. U Blatch. 293; 12 Off. 
 Gaz. 753. 
 
 Hess v. Young. Grain-screener. Pleading, fraud. Misrepre- 
 sentations in contract. Means of knowledge. 59 Ind. 379. 
 
 Hiatt v. Twomey. Water-wheels. No implied warranty in 
 sale of patent-right. 1 Dev. & B. Eq. (N. C.) 315. 
 
 Hicks v. Kelsey. Wagon-reach. Want of novelty. Change 
 of material. 18 Wall. 670; 5 Off. Gaz. 94. 
 
 Hide and Leather Splitting Co. (See American Hide 
 AND Leather Splitting Co.) 
 
 Higgins v. Strong. Truss. Note. Patent rights by statute 
 only. Assignment must be recorded. 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 182. 
 
 Hike v. Providence Railroad (should be Pike, q. v.). 
 
 Hill v. Houghton. Spelling-blocks. Patentability, state of 
 
 art. 6 Off. Gaz. 3. 
 Hill v. Thuermer. Burning lime. Note, consideration. 13 
 
 Ind. 351. 
 
 Hill v. Whitcomb. Printing-presses. Territorial grantee 
 must sue in name of patentee. Suit in his own name does 
 not arise under patent laws, and is not in jurisdiction of 
 federal courts. 1 Holmes, 317; 5 Off. Gaz. 430. 
 
 Hitchcock v. Tremaine. Tremolo attachment for organs. 
 Interpretation of particular patent. Patents for a principle. 
 Want of novelty. 8 Blatch. 440; 4 Fisher, 508. 
 
 Hitchcock v. Tremaine. Tremolo attachment for organs. 
 Motion for rehearing, want of proper expert testimony, 
 newly discovered evidence. 9 Blatch. 550; 5 Fisher, 537; 
 1 Off. Gaz. 633. 
 
 Hitchcock v. Tremaine. Tremolo attachment for organs. 
 Master's report. Gains and profits, wrong estimate. Gen- 
 eral expenses. 9 Blatch. 385; 5 Fisher, 310.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 69 
 
 HocKHOLZER V. Eager. Timber-framing machine. Prelimi- 
 nary injunctions when no prior decisions, exclusive pos- 
 session must be shown, laches, inconvenience to parties. 
 2 Sawyer, 361. 
 
 Hodge v. Hudson River Railroad. Car-brakes. Infringe- 
 ment, license. 6 Blatch. 85; 3 Fisher, 410. 
 
 Hodge v. Hudson River Railroad. Car-brakes. License, 
 effect of extension. Where validity of patent has been 
 fully established, an injunction will be granted, though very 
 damaging to the defendant. 6 Blatch. 165. 
 
 Hodge v. Irox Mountain Railroad. Car-brakes. Mis- 
 joinder of plaintiffs, how taken advantage of. 1 Dillon, 104; 
 4 Fisher, 161. 
 
 Hodge v. New York and Harlem Railroad. Car-brakes. 
 Infringement, license. 6 Blatch. 85; 3 Fisher, 410. 
 
 Hodge v. North Missouri Railroad. Car-brakes. Mis- 
 joinder of plaintiffs, how taken advantage of. 1 Dillon, 
 104; 4 Fisher, 161. 
 
 Hoe v. Simpson. Saws. Effect or function not patentable, 
 must state means. Infringement, comparison of the two 
 machines. 6 Off. Gaz. 435. 
 
 Hoe & Co. v. Cole & Co. Printers' galleys. Original in- 
 ventor. Infringement. 13 Off. Gaz. 500. 
 
 Hoeltze v. Hoeller. Elbows of stove-pipes. Jurisdiction. 
 Patents surreptitiously obtained. 2 Bond, 386. 
 
 HoFFHEiMS V. Brandt. Horse-rakes. Equity jurisdiction 
 over patents is as full as that at law. Fraud of plaintiff 
 prevents relief. Reissues must be for what is described or 
 shown in original. Degree of utility required. Patent 
 prima facie evidence of novelty. Reissue prima facie evi- 
 dence that it was not abandoned. 3 Fisher, 218. 
 
 Hoffman v. Aronson. Paper collars. Interpretation of par- 
 ticular patent. Want of novelty. False suggestion. 
 Infringement. 8 Blatch. 324; 4 Fisher, 456. 
 
 Hoffman v. Stiefel. Paper collars. Validity of particular 
 patent. 7 Blatch. 58; 3 Fisher, 638.
 
 60 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Hogg- v. Emerson. Steam-engine. Case coming up by discre- 
 tion comes up as a lohole. Drawings and specification must 
 be construed with patent. Patentee may recover for 
 infringement during interval betvreen fire of 1836 and re- 
 storing of records. 6 How. 457; 2 Robb, 655. 
 
 Hogg v. Emerson. Steam-engine. Drawings ai-e part of 
 
 specification. Price paid for license may be considered by 
 
 jury in settling damages. 11 How. 587. 
 HoLBROOK V. Matthews. Seed-planter. Want of novelty. 
 
 Mere change of material. 10 Off. Gaz. 508. 
 HoLBROOK V. Small. Seed-planter. Want of novelty. Mere 
 
 change of material. 10 Oif . Gaz. 508. 
 HoLDEN V. Curtis. Spirit purifier. General principle of sale 
 
 without title of personal property. Assignments of patents. 
 
 Recording. Patentability. 2 N. H. 61. 
 
 HoLLiDA V. Hunt. State legislation, sales of patents. Rights 
 of patentees are United States rights. Parol evidence to 
 vary written contracts. 70 111. 109. 
 
 HoLLiDAY V. Rheem. Water-wheel. Uncertainty in specifica- 
 tion. Want of novelty. Combination patents. 18 Penn. 
 St. 465. 
 
 HdLLY V. Union City. Water-supply. Interpretation of par- 
 ticular 'patent and decree. 14 Off. Gaz. 5. 
 
 Hopkins and Dickinson Manufacturing Co. v. Corbin. 
 
 Sash-fasteners. Infringement, construction of joint patent 
 modified by prior patent of one joint inventor. 14 Blatch. 
 396; 14 Off. Gaz. 3. 
 
 Hopkins and Dickinson Manufacturing Co. v. Parker and 
 Whipple Manufacturing Co. Sash-fasteners. In- 
 fringement, construction of joint patent modified by prior 
 patent of one joint inventor. 14 Blatch. 396; 14 Off. 
 Gaz. 3. 
 
 Hotchkiss v. Greenwood. Door-knobs. Change of material 
 not patentable. Patentability. 4 McLean, 456; 2 Robb, 
 730. 
 
 Hotchkiss v. Greenwood. Door-knobs. Want of novelty, 
 change of material, effect. Above affirmed. 11 How. 248.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 61 
 
 HoTCHKiss V. Oliver. Water-wheel. Disclaimers, unrea- 
 sonable delay. Vendee's election to recede or not. Validity 
 of patents. 5 Denio (N. Y.), 314. 
 
 HouGHTOX V. Rowley. Fruit-jars. Agreement, construction. 
 
 9 Phila. (Penn.) 288. 
 
 House v. Youxg. Electric baths. Reissue of older patent is 
 complete defence in the absence of fraud. Both are prima 
 facie valid. 3 Fisher, 335. 
 
 HovEY V. Hexry. Straw-cutter. Prior sale for two years. 
 Abandonment. 3 West. L. J. 153. 
 
 Hovey v. Rurber Tip Pexcil Co. Pencil-tips. Rights of 
 patentees. Notice to public. Xo State jurisdiction on 
 validity of patents. 33 N. Y. Supr. 522. 
 
 Hovey v. Stevexs. Tool-grinders. Interpretation of particu- 
 lar patent. Original inventor. Want of novelty. In- 
 junction refused, short time since issue. 1 W. & M. 290; 2 
 Robb, 479. 
 
 Hovey v. Stevexs. Tool-grinders. Interpretation of particu- 
 lar patent. Patentability. Allowance of costs. 3 W. & 
 M. 17; 2 Robb, 567. 
 
 Howard v. Christy. Paper for roofs. Particular patent. 
 
 10 Off. Gaz. 981. 
 
 Howe v. Abbott. Mattress. Result not patentable. Com- 
 bination and entire process is not infringed by combination 
 Sind part of the process. 2 Story, 190; 2 Robb, 99. 
 
 Howe v. Mortox. Sewing-machine. Preliminary injunctions. 
 State of the art. Infringement. Foreign patents. Short 
 time to run. Defendant gives bonds. 1 Fisher, 5SG. 
 
 Howe v. Newtox. Boot-trees. Public use. Abandonment. 
 Purchase from licensee as defense. Damage to defendant. 
 2 Fisher, 531. 
 
 Howe v. Uxderwood. Sewing-machine. Original inventor. 
 Abandoned experiments. Interested witnesses. Interpre- 
 tation of the machine. State of the art. Old remains. 1 
 Fisher, 160.
 
 62 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Howe v. AVilliams. Sewing-machine. Motions for trial at 
 law, when gi-anted. Original inventor. Interpretation of 
 particular patent. Want of novelty. Abandonment, ac- 
 quiescence in use by public. Infringement, combination. 
 2 Fisher, 395. 
 
 HowK V. WooLDREDGE. Sewing-machine. Suit to recover 
 royalties. Interpretation of contract. Object of patent 
 laws. Effect of sale of patented article. 12 Allen, 18. 
 
 Howes v. McNeal. Grain-separator. Want of novelty, re- 
 jected applications are not evidence of completed inventions. 
 Infringement, effect of improvements. 15 Off. Gaz. G08. 
 
 Howes v. Nute. Extra yards for topsails. Feitent prima facie 
 evidence of original inventor. Sufficiency of specification, 
 how determined. AVant of novelty. 4 Fisher, 263. 
 
 Hubbell v. United States. Shells. Use by government of 
 patented inventions, amount of compensation. Original 
 inventor. 5 N. & H. 1. 
 
 Hudson v. Draper. Printing-type. Burden of proof of in- 
 fringement. Experts as witnesses. Rule of damages. 4 
 Fisher, 256. 
 
 Hull v. Commissioner of Patents. Mandamus. Power of 
 Commissioner of Patents. Patentability. Duties of ex- 
 aminers-in-chief and assistants. First favorable decision is 
 not conclusive. Remedy for rejection. 7 Off. Gaz. 559. 
 
 Hull v. Commissioner of Patents. Rehearing. Court 
 will not compel Connnissioner to issue a patent. Above 
 affirmed. 8 Off. Gaz. 46. 
 
 Hunt v. Hoover. Making sugar. Breach of warranty, false 
 representations. State court has jurisdiction in such cases. 
 24 Iowa, 231. 
 
 HussEY V. Bradley. Reaper. Reissue not for same inven- 
 tion. Disclaimer by mistake in original. Patentability, 
 want of novelty. On sale two years. Burden of proof. 
 Laches in getting reissue. Date of reissues. Infringement, 
 combination. Lack of interest in one defendant. 5 Blatch. 
 134; 2 Fisher, 362.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 63 
 
 HussEY V. Bradley. Reaper. Taxation of costs. What are 
 allowable. 5 Blatch. 210. 
 
 HusscY V. McCoRMiCK. Reaper. Admission by defendant. 
 Original inventor. Reissue not for same invention. 1 
 Bissell, 300; 1 Fisher, 509. 
 
 HussEY *'. WniTELY. Reaper. Motion to dissolve injunction. 
 Interpretation of agreement. " Party acjgrieved " under 
 patent law. Power to dissolve injunctions by district 
 judges. Five presumptions of novelty. Defendant's in- 
 jury no ground for dissolving injunction. 1 Bond, 407; 2 
 Fisher, 120. 
 
 Hyndman v. Roots. Rotary blower. Infringement, substan- 
 tial equivalents, palpable evasion. Interpretation of par- 
 ticular patent^ 7 Otto, 224; 13 Off. Gaz. 868. 
 
 Illinois Central Railroad v. Turrill. (See Cawood 
 Patent.) 
 
 Imlay t'. Norwich and Worcester Railroad. Railway- 
 cars. Account where injunction cannot be granted at once. 
 Infringement, construction of patent and comparison of 
 machines. 4 Blatch. 227; 1 Fisher, 340. 
 
 India-rubber Comb Co. v. Phelps. Combs. Motion to 
 amend answer after decree. Reasonable diligence. New 
 parol evidence. Refused. 8 Blatch. 85; 4 Fisher, 315. 
 
 Ingels v. Mast. Grain-drills. Master's report. Profits. 
 Added element of combination. 6 Fisher, 415; 7 Off. Gaz. 
 836. 
 
 Ingersoll v. Benham. Cuspadores. Master's report, dam- 
 ages and profits. Costs. Nominal damages. 14 Blatch. 
 541; 13 Off. Gaz. 966. 
 
 Ingersoll v. Musgrove. Cuspadores. ^Master's report, dam- 
 ages and profits. Costs. Nominal damages. 14 Blatch. 
 541 ; 13 Off. Gaz. 966. 
 
 Ingersoll v. Turner. Cuspadores. '^\niat "cuspadore" 
 means. Want of novelty. 12 Off. Gaz. 189.
 
 64 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Iron Works. (See Boston and Fairhaven Iron Works; 
 Pacific Iron Works.) 
 
 Iron and Nail Factory. (See Troy Iron and Nail Fac- 
 tory.) 
 
 Irwin y. Dane. Lamps. Granting of preliminary injunctions, 
 discretion of the court. Damage to plaintiff to refuse. 2 
 Bissell, 442; 4 Fisher, 359. 
 
 Irwin v. Dane. Lamps. Interpretation of particular patent. 
 Want of novelty. Original inventor. Infringement. 9 
 Off. Gaz. 642. 
 
 Isaacs r. Abrams. Brooms for railways. Want of novelty. 
 Change of material, change of form. Original inventor. 
 14 Off. Gaz. 861. 
 
 Isaacs v. Cooper. Circular plane. Practice, injunctions in 
 equity. Defective specification. Doubt. 4 Wash. 259; 
 1 Robb, 332. 
 
 Ives v. Hamilton. Saw-mills. Infringement, same means. 
 Patents for improvements need not describe machine im- 
 proved on. 2 Otto, 426; 10 Off. Gaz. 336. 
 
 J. 
 
 Jackson v. Allen. Chairs for theatres. Construction of 
 patents is for the court. Infringement for the jury. Con- 
 tract. AVant of novelty. Estoppel by deed and in pais. 
 120 Mass. 64. 
 
 Jackson v. Breck. Mowing-machine. Decree. 11 Off. Gaz. 
 112. 
 
 Jacobs v. Baker. Jails and prisons. Improvement in plan 
 of building jails not patentable. Original inventor. 7 
 Wall. 295. 
 
 Jacobs v. Commissioners of Hamilton County. Jails and 
 prisons. Commissioners are a quasi corporation only, and 
 not liable for infringement, but the conti-actor is. General 
 law of corporation's liability in tort. 1 Bond, 500 ; 4 
 Fisher, 81.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 65 
 
 Jeffries v. Wiesteu. Vapor-burner. Bill ior reassignment. 
 Agent employed to sell, buys himself. Sale annulled. 
 Vendor entitled to account. Compensation of agent. 
 Amount of proceeds to be accounted for. 2 Sawyer, 135. 
 
 Jenkins v. Abbotts. Concrete pavement. Contract, royalty. 
 Void patent. No consideration. Parol agreement void 
 by Statute of Frauds. 5i N. H. 447. 
 
 Jenkins v. Greenwald. Planing-machine. Jurisdiction. 
 Assignee's right to injunction is by statute. Defendants 
 stopping after service of injunction no reason why it 
 should not be made perpetual. Right to make and to use 
 are separate rights. Infringement. 1 Bond, 126 ; 2 
 Fisher, 37. 
 
 Jenkins r. Johnson. Elastic packing. Construction of par- 
 ticular patent. Want of novelty. State of art. 9 Blatch. 
 516 ; 5 Fisher, 433. 
 
 Jenkins v. Nicolson Pavement Co. Wood pavement. As- 
 signment, construction of habendum clause. 1 Abbott, 
 567; 4 Fisher, 201. 
 
 Jenkins v. Walker. Elastic packing. Defenses set up in 
 answer must be proved. Want of novelty. Invention of 
 compound should state proportions of ingredients. 1 
 Holmes, 120; 5 Fisher, 347; 1 Off. Gaz. 359. 
 
 JoHNSEN V. Beard. Cotton bale-ties. Different drawing for 
 reissue. Defendant allowed to prove state at time of 
 original. Original inventor. 8 Off. Gaz. 435. 
 
 JoHNSEN V. Passman. Cotton bale-ties. Patent prima facie 
 evidence against abandonment. Principles of abandon- 
 ment. Date of patent. Infringement, same principle. 1 
 Woods, 138; 5 Fisher, 471; 2 Off. Gaz. 94. 
 
 JonxsoN r. McCabe. Fanning-mill. Promissory note. No 
 consideration. False representations. Written contract, 
 parol evidence. 37 Ind. 535. 
 
 Johnson v. McCulloch. Wood-splitting machine. Exact 
 time of expiration of patents is last hour of day. Exten- 
 sions applied for ninety days before. It takes more than 
 a model to anticipate a patent. 4 Fisher, 170. 
 6
 
 66 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Johnson v. Root. Sewing-machine. Charge to jury. Con- 
 struction of patents by court. Patent prima facie evidence. 
 Original inventor. Infringement, substantially the same 
 machine. Comparison is for jury. Evidence of experts. 
 Race of diligence. 1 Fisher, 351. 
 
 Johnson v. Root. Sewing-machine. Motion for new trial. 
 Patent prima facie evidence of original inventor. Burden 
 of proof of earlier date by plaintiff. Date of inventions, 
 laying aside part and then restoring it. Abandonment. 
 Damages given by jury contrary to instructions. A charge 
 of irregularity must be proved. 2 Cliff. 108; 2 Fisher, 291. 
 
 Johnson v. Willimantic Linen Co. Dressing thread. Ad- 
 missibility of evidence. Implied warranty on sale of 
 patent. Patent prima facie evidence of novelty. Con- 
 struction of particular patent. 33 Conn. 436. 
 
 JoLiFFE V. Collins. Hay-rake. Written contract. No 
 warranty by parol. Fiaud. Total failure of consideration. 
 Worthless note. Set-off. 21 Mo. 338. 
 
 JoNKS V. BuRNHAM. Preserving corn. Estoppel by license to 
 dispute original inventor. Patent /jn/Ha/atv'e valid. What 
 a license is. Note without consideration. Fraud. 67 
 Maine, 93. 
 
 Jones v. Field. Self-lubricating axles. Injunction denied 
 owing to short time since issue of patent and no adjudica- 
 tion of its validity. 12 Blatch. 494. 
 
 Jones v. Hodges. Preserving green corn. Preliminary in- 
 junctions. Not granted where strong doubt of novelty. 
 Patentability. 1 Holmes, 37. 
 
 Jones v. McMurry. Preserving green corn. Patent declared 
 void for want of novelty, then reissued. Bad either be- 
 cause still void for want of novelty, or because not for same 
 invention. 2 Hughes, 527; 13 Off. Gaz. 6. 
 
 JoNKS V. Merrill. Preserving green corn. Preliminary in- 
 junctions. Prior decisions. Liberal construction of patents. 
 Negligence of plaintiffs in preventing infringement has its 
 weight in applications for injunctions. 8 Off. Gaz. 401.
 
 LIST OP CASES. 67 
 
 Jones v. Morehead. Locks. Want of novelty, particular 
 patent. 1 Wall. 155. 
 
 Jones v. Noyes. Preserving green corn. Preliminary injunc- 
 tions. Prior decisions. Liberal construction of patents. 
 Negligence of plaintiffs in preventing infringement has its 
 weight in applications for injunctions. 8 Off. Gaz. 401. 
 
 Jones v. Osgood. Zinc-white. Patent with bad specifica- 
 tion. Defendant a director of corporation and without 
 control is not responsible for infringement. Corporation 
 sued in different state, qucere. 6 Blatch. 435; 3 Fisher, .591. 
 
 Jones v. Ostuander. Preserving green corn. Preliminary 
 injunctions. Prior decisions. Liberal construction of 
 patents. Negligence of plaintiffs in preventing infringe- 
 ment has its weight in applications for injunctions. 8 Off. 
 Gaz. 401. 
 
 Jones i'. Sewall. Preserving green corn. Patents for pro- 
 cess and for product. Patent prima facie evidence of 
 original inventor. Want of novelty, new use. Two years' 
 sale. Prior use abroad must be by printed publications- 
 Abandonment, unavoidable delay. Patent sustained. 3 
 Cliff. 563; 6 Fisher, 343; 3 Off. Gaz. 630. 
 
 Jones v. Vankirk. Lamps. Licensee's stamping goods is an 
 acknowledgment that the goods so made are subject to the 
 agi-eement. Infringement. 2 Fisher, 586. 
 
 Jordan v. Dayton. Medicine. Practice must be according 
 to State law. 4 Ohio, 295. 
 
 Jordan v. Dobson. Wool machinery. Assignments must be 
 in writing. Non-joinder of parties plaintiff. Reissue not 
 for same invention. Fraud must be proved. Power of 
 Congress to renew patent, power of Commissioner under 
 special act. Beginning of extensions. Want of novelty. 
 Defen.se in answer. Acquiescence by plaintiff in infringe- 
 ment. 2 Abbott, 398; 7 Pliila. (Penn.) 533; 4 FLsher, 232. 
 
 Jordan v. Wallace. Wool machinery. Infringement should 
 be distinctly and unovasively denied in answer. Incapacity 
 of patentee when reissued. 5 Fisher, 185.
 
 68 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 JuDSON V. Cope. Valves for governors. Charge to jury. 
 Uncertainty in specification. Want of novelty. Prior use 
 here. Proof. Infringement, same principle. 1 Bond, 
 327; 1 Fisher, 615. 
 
 JtJDSON V. Moore. Valves for governors. Charge to jury. 
 Uncertainty in specification for the court. Want of novelty. 
 Patent ^n'ma /acie evidence. Notice of places and times. 
 Utility. Infringement, damages. 1 Bond, 285; 1 Fisher, 
 544. 
 
 JuRGENSEX V. Magnix. Stem-setting watches. Construction 
 of particular patent. Comjiarison of the two patents. 
 9 Blatch. 294; 5 Fisher, 237. 
 
 K. 
 
 Kelleher v. Darlixg. Mocassin pac. Special notice under 
 
 general issue. Reissue not for same invention. Original 
 inventor. Experts' ingenuity does not make a good patent. 
 What reissues can effect. Printed publication, how 
 pleaded and proved. Models do not anticipate. Mere 
 delay is not abandonment. Public use for two years cannot 
 be set up under general issue. Fatent prima facie evidence. 
 14 Off. Gaz. 673. 
 
 Kemptox v. Bray. Boom-spring traveller. Assignment. 
 Patent-rights can be divided only according to United 
 States patent law. Territorial assignee cannot stop patentee 
 or others from working under the patents outside of assignee's 
 territory. 99 Mass. 350. 
 
 Kexdall r. WixsoR. Weaver's harness. State court has 
 no power to enjoin proceedings in United States courts. 
 Patent jurisdiction. Parties as witnesses. 6 R. I. 453. 
 
 Kexdall v. Wixsor. Weaver's harness. Object of patent 
 laws. General issue and notice of defenses. Admissibility 
 of evidence. License not proved. Dedication a right. 
 Delay while perfecting invention is not abandonment. An 
 invention pirated and used does not deprive inventor of his 
 right. Above affirmed. 21 How. 322.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 69 
 
 Kendrick 11. Emmons. Weavei-'s harness. Preliminary in- 
 junctions. Infringement. 1 Holmes, 234; 6 Fisher, 462; 
 4 Off. Gaz. 398. 
 
 Kendrick v. Emmons. Weaver's harness. English patent 
 taken out surreptitiously will not defeat the inventor's 
 right here. 9 Off. Gaz. 201. 
 
 Kendrick v. Emmons. Weaver's harness. Evidence before 
 a master, dividing royalties. 15 Off. Gaz. 966. 
 
 Keplinger v. De Young. Watch-chain machine. Notice 
 under general issue. Contract, interpretation of. Rights 
 under the patent law. 10 Wheat. 358; 1 Robb, 458. 
 
 Kernodle v. Hunt. Grist-mill. Debt on note. No consid- 
 eration. Pleading, what is sufficient. Void patent. 4 
 Blackf. (Ind.) 57. 
 
 Kerosene Lamp Heater Co. v. Littell. Lamps. Re- 
 issue can claim whatever is shown in original drawings. 
 Reissue not for same invention. Aggregation of parts not 
 patentable. Want of novelty. Infringement, combination. 
 13 Off. Gaz. 1009. 
 
 Ketchum Harvesting Machine Co. v. Johnston Har- 
 vester Co. Harvesters. Reissue not for same invention. 
 Want of novelty. Particular patent. Infiingement. '13 
 Off. Gaz. 178. 
 
 Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phcenix Iron Co. Iron truss 
 bridges. Particular patent. Infringement, patents for 
 use not infringed by makimi and selling. 5 Fisher, 468; 
 1 Off. Gaz. 471. 
 
 Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phcenix Iron Co. Iron truss 
 bridges. Patents must be construed according to their 
 language. Defects should be cured by reissue. Above 
 affirmed. 5 Otto, 274; 12 Off. Gaz. 980. 
 
 KiDD V. Spence. Bonnet-frames. Patents must be construed 
 according to the claims. 4 Fisher, 37. 
 
 King v. Hammond. Bridges. Interpretation of particular 
 patent. Want of novelty. Simple and economical things 
 are not anticipated by complex and expensive ones. 4 
 Fisher, 488.
 
 70 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 King v. Louisville Cement Co. Baling-presses. Infringe- 
 ment, combination, well-known equivalents. 6 Fisher, 
 334; 4 Off. Gaz. 181. 
 
 King v. Maudelbaum. Fluting-machine. Interpretation of 
 particular patent. Want of novelty. Infringement, com- 
 parison of the two machines. 8 Blatch. 468 ; 4 Fisher, 577. 
 
 King v. Werner. Fluting-machine. Interpretation of par- 
 ticular patent. State of art. Meaning of " simultaneously." 
 Infringement, mode of operation, mechanical equivalent. 
 12 Blatch. 270; 8 Off. Gaz. 361. 
 
 Kinsman v. Parkhurst. Cotton-gin. Agreement, sales 
 under it estop defendant from disputing validity of patent. 
 Contract in restraint of trade. Profits and damages. 18 
 How. 289. 
 
 KiRBY V. Beardsley. Harvester. Reissue not for same in- 
 vention. Particular patent. Want of novelty, change of 
 location. Priority. 5 Blatch. 438; 3 Fisher, 265. 
 
 KiRBY V. Dodge and Stevenson Manufacturing Co. 
 Harvester. Particuhxr patent. Want of novelty, state of 
 art. Original inventor. Reissues not for same invention. 
 Decision of Supreme Court, entitled to deference, how 
 much. Impracticability. Infringement not considered 
 when patent is declared void. 10 Blatch. 307; 6 Fisher, 
 156; 3 Off. Gaz. 181. 
 
 Kittle v. Frost. Spring mattress. Particular patent. Want 
 of novelty. Contract as a defense, intei-pretation of. 9 
 Blatch. 214; 5 Fisher, 213. 
 
 Kittle v. Merriam. Door-fastenings. Court construes, not 
 corrects, patents. Drawings may correct an eiTor in the 
 text. 2 Curtis, 475. 
 
 Klein w. Park & Co. Eyes of picks. Want of novelty, 
 last step being new makes all new. Infringement, formal 
 change, same principle. 13 Off. Gaz. 5. 
 
 Klein v. Russell. Treating leather. Reissue not for samo 
 invention. Particular patent. Utility. 19 Wall. 333.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 71 
 
 Kneass I'. Schuylkill Bank. Bank-note printing. Charge 
 to jury. Books of science to aid the court. Infringement 
 is for jury. Statutes in evidence under general issue. 
 Defects in specification. Patentability. Damages. 4 
 Wash. 9; 1 Robb, 303. 
 
 Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank. AVhen costs are allowed, none 
 by common law. 4 Wash. 106. 
 
 Knight v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. Railway-cars. 
 
 Charge to jury. Patent prima facie evidence of original 
 
 inventor. Reissues are for defects in specification only. 
 
 Taney, Dec. 106; 3 Fisher, 1. 
 Knowles v. Peck. India-rubber. Violation of injunction at 
 
 request of patentee's agent. Conspiracy charged. 42 
 
 Conn. 386. 
 
 Knox v. Great Western Quicksilver Mining Co. What 
 matter not redundant. Reference to prior suit. 3 Sawyer, 
 422; 14 Off. Gaz. 897. 
 
 Knox v. Loweree. Fluting-machine. Date of invention, 
 completed and in private use. Delay during war is not 
 abandonment. Want of novelty. Infringement, same 
 means, same result. 6 Off. Gaz. 802. 
 
 Knox v. Murtha. Smut-mill. Infringement, construction 
 of complainant's patent. AVant of novelty. 9 Blatch. 
 205; 5 Fisher, 174. 
 
 Kursheedt v. Werner. Fluting-machine. Particular pat- 
 ent. Prior interpretations. Infringement. 12 Blatch. 
 530; 8 Off. Gaz. 146. 
 
 L. 
 
 La Baw I'. Hawkins. Miter-machines. Reissue not for 
 same invention. Prior use. Infringement, same principle. 
 6 Off. Gaz. 724. 
 
 Lake v. Fitzgerald. Vault-covers. Infringement, particu- 
 lar patent. 6 Fisher, 420. 
 
 Lamp Heater Co. (See Kerosene Lamp Heater Co.)
 
 72 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Lane v. Smith. Looms. Promissory note, to recover pro- 
 ceeds. Fraud. Interpretation of contract. 68 Maine, 178. 
 
 Langdon v. De Groot. Preparing cotton. What utility is. 
 Defective specifications. 1 Paine, 203. 1 Robb, 433. 
 
 Larabee v. Cortlan. Shower-baths. Charge to jury. Par- 
 ticular patent. Original inventor. Patent prima facie 
 evidence. Taney, Dec. 180; 3 Fisher, 5. 
 
 Latta v. Shavv^k. Steam generator. Charge to jury. Pat- 
 ents for combinations, want of novelty of patents. In- 
 fringement, same principle. 1 Bond, 259; 1 Fisher, 465. 
 
 Leather Splitting Co. (See American Hide and Leather 
 Splitting Co.) 
 
 Lee v. Blandy. Circular-saws. Charge to jury. Certified 
 copies of assignments. License to defendant is evidence of 
 utility. Two inventions in one patent. Two kinds of 
 patentable combinations. Infringement, same principle. 
 1 Bond, 361 ; 2 Fisher, 89. 
 
 Leonard v. Barnum. Thimble-skeins for wagons. State 
 jurisdiction over patents. Sales injurious to infants made 
 by administrator or guardian, set aside. 34 Wis. 105. 
 
 Leroy v. Tatham. Tube-making. What "principle " means. 
 Patentability in general. Result not patentable. Particu- 
 lar patent. 14 How. 156. 
 
 Leeoy v. Tatham. Tube-making. Particular patent. Clear- 
 ness in specification. Difference in result patentable as 
 showing difference in process. 22 How. 132. 
 
 Lester v. Palmer. Loose horse-car wheel. Note. Void 
 patent, no consideration. 4 Allen (Mass.), 145. 
 
 Liddle v. Cory. Hot-air furnace. Contempt, violation of in- 
 junction. Article not sold till after decree, issue not prop- 
 erly raised on motion for contempt. 7 Blatch. 1. 
 
 Lightner v. Boston and Albany Railroad. Axle-boxes for 
 railways. A new corporation can use patented cars licensed 
 to the coi'poration which it supersedes. 1 Lowell, 338.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 73 
 
 LiGHTNER V. Brooks. Axle-boxes for railways. Corporation 
 not responsible for infringement by a contractor. General 
 responsibility in tort. Contracts by chairman of corpora- 
 tion. 2 Cliff. 287. 
 
 LiGHTXER V. Kimball. Axle-boxes for railways. Responsi- 
 bility of agents in tort. Agents of corporations having 
 nothing to do with use of patented article do not infringe. 
 1 Lowell, 211, 
 
 Lindsay v. Ror aback. Chemical soap. Jurisdiction in pat- 
 ents. Pleading, allegation of fraud. 4 Jones, Eq. (X. C.) 
 124. 
 
 LiPPiNCOTT V. Kelly, Planing-raachine. Disclaimer, un- 
 reasonable delay. 1 West. L. J. 513. 
 
 Littlefield v. Perry, Coal-burner. Jurisdiction where both 
 parties are citizens of same State. Assignments and 
 licenses. Licensee cannot sue. Agreement. Equitable 
 and legal titles. Infringement, damages and profits. 21 
 Wall. 205; 7 Off. Gaz. 964. 
 
 Livingston v. Jones. Door-locks, Experts and professors as 
 witnesses. Comparison of machines. Original inventor. 
 Utility. 1 Fisher, 521. 
 
 Livingston v. Jones. Door-locks. Master's report. Gains 
 and profits. Rule of damages. No vindictive injunctions. 
 Validity of particular patent. 3 WaU. Jr. 330; 2 Fisher, 
 207. 
 
 Livingston v. Van Ingen. Patent for navigation of particular 
 waters. No jurisdiction of United States court, both 
 parties being of same State. Suit at law not in equity. 
 1 Paine, 45. 
 
 Livingston v. Woodworth. Planing-machine. Objection of 
 misjoinder is too late after decree. Decree, if granted, must 
 be in accordance with prayer of the bill. 15 How. 546. 
 
 Lock Co. (See Norwalk Lock Co.) 
 
 Lockwood v. Lockwood. Sled-runners. Livention by em- 
 ploye. Immaterial affidavits. Jurisdiction of State courts. 
 33 Iowa, 198,
 
 74 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co. v. Erie Railroad, 
 
 Rail way- trucks. Particular patent. Want of novelty. 
 Title of patent is not conclusive. 10 Blatch. 292; 6 Fisher, 
 187; 3 Off. Gaz. 93. 
 
 Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co. v. Pennsylvania 
 Railroad. Railway-trucks. Particular patent. Want of 
 novelty. Title of patent is not conclusive. Abandonment, 
 public use. Patentability of combination. 6 Off. Gaz. 927. 
 
 Loom Co. (See Webster Loom Co.) 
 
 LoRiLLARD & Co. V. McDowELL. Labelled tobacco. Want 
 of novelty. Reissue not for same invention, inadvertence. 
 34 Leg. Lit. 78; 24 Pitts. L. J. 119; 11 Off. Gaz. 640. 
 
 Loudon v. Birt. Door-plates. Xote assigned. Pleading, 
 fraud. Record of assignments. Defenses under general 
 issue. What payment is made in. * 4 Ind. 566. 
 
 Lowell v. Lewis. Pumps. Charge to jury. Patent prima 
 facie evidence of novelty and utility. What "useful" 
 means. Clearness in specification. Infringement, change 
 of form. 1 Mason, 182; 1 Robb, 131. 
 
 Lowell Manufacturing Co. v. Hartford Carpet Co. 
 Power-looms. Interpretation of agreement, extension. 2 
 Fisher, 472. 
 
 Lyman Ventilating and Refrigerator Co. v. Chamber- 
 lain. Method of cooling rooms. Prior construction of 
 patent adopted. No infringement. 10 Off. Gaz. 588. 
 
 Lyman Ventilating and Refrigerator Co. v. Lalor. 
 Method of cooling rooms. Particular patent. Want of 
 novelty. Infringement, same principle. 12 Blatch. 303; 
 6 Off. Gaz. 642. 
 
 M. 
 
 Mabie v. Haskell. Shoe-last. Clearness in specification. 
 State of art. Object of the lav?. Construction of patents 
 by the court. Original inventor. Infringement, special 
 denial. 2 Cliff. 507.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 75 
 
 Magic Rufflk Co. v. Douglass. Ruffles, sewing-machine. 
 Charge to jury. Validity for jury. Particular patent. 
 Patent prima facie evidence of oiiginal inventor. Utility. 
 Defective specification. Damages. 2 Fisher, 330. 
 
 Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co. Ruffles. Contract, 
 estoppel to dispute validity. Infringement, choice of rem- 
 edies. Want of novelty. Damages in equity. 13 Blatch. 
 151; 8 Off. Gaz. 773. 
 
 Magic Rufflf, Co. v. Elm City Co. Ruffles. Jurisdiction of 
 bills for discovery. Master's report. Damages. Interlocu- 
 tory orders subject to revision. Forfeiture by laches. 14 
 Blatch. 109; 11 Off. Gaz. 501. 
 
 Mahn v. Harwood. Base-ball covering. Want of novelty. 
 State of art. 14 Off. Gaz. 859. 
 
 Mallory I'. Rahmer. Men's hats. Infringement. 8 Blatch. 
 556 ; 4 Fisher, 632. 
 
 Mallory v. White. Men's hats. Infringement, same means, 
 same purpose. Want of novelty. 8 Blatch. 552; 4 Fisher, 
 628. 
 
 Maltby v. Bobo. Nail-pullers. Salesman is liable for selling, 
 though without interest. 14 Blatch. 53. 
 
 Mann v. Bay'Liss. Harvesters. Xo infringement, essentially 
 different. 10 Off. Gaz. 113; s. c. 10 Off. Gaz. 789.' 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. Bussing. (See Gilbert and Barker 
 Manufacturing Co.) 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. Clark. (See Gong Bell Manufac- 
 turing Co.) 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. Corbin. (See Hopkins, &c. Manu- 
 facturing Co.) 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. Corning. (See Gould's Manufac- 
 turing Co.) 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. Diatite Co. (See Florence Manu- 
 facturing Co.) 
 
 1 More extended report. Liberal construction of patents.
 
 76 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. Du Brul. (See Miller Manufac- 
 turing Co.) 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. Fiske. (See Boston Manufactur- 
 ing Co.) 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. Hartford Co. (See Lowell Man- 
 ufacturing Co.) 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. Hayden. (See Suffolk Manufac- 
 turing Co.) 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. Lane. (See American Manufac- 
 turing Co.) 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. Lounsbury. (See Union Manu- 
 facturing Co.) 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. Mallory. (See Russell and Erwin 
 Manufacturing Co.) 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. Parker and Whipple Manufactur- 
 ing Co. (See Hopkins, &c. Manufacturing Co.) 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. Prime. (See Brandon Manufac- 
 turing Co.) 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. Tirrell. (See Gilbert and Barker 
 Manufacturing Co.) 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. Walworth Manufacturing Co. 
 (See Gilbert and Barker Manufacturing Co.) 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. White. (See Gorham Manufac- 
 turing Co.) 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. Woodruff. (See Sargent Manu- 
 facturing Co.) 
 
 Manvel v. Holdredge. Contract to reassign. 45 N. Y. 151. 
 
 Many v. Jagger. Car-wheels. Charge to jury. Assignment, 
 admissibility of evidence. Particular patent. Improve- 
 ment need not describe machine improved on. Want of 
 novelty, abandoned experiments. Test of identity. Utility. 
 1 Blatch. 372.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 77 
 
 Many v. Sizer. Car-wheels. Charge to jury. Patent /»nwia 
 facie evidence. Priority. Abandoned experiments. Orig- 
 inal inventor. Utility. Infringement, greater utility. 
 Expert testimony. Damages. 1 Fisher, 17. 
 
 Maxy v. Sizer. Car-wheels. Preliminary injunctions. Ver- 
 dict at law. Constructions of patents. Decisions of other 
 federal judges. 1 Fisher, 31. 
 
 Marsh v. Commissioner of Patents. Cultivators. Reject- 
 ing patents. Abandonment, non-action for eighteen years, 
 original reason immaterial. 3 Bissell, 321. 
 
 Marsh v. Dodge. Rakes. Royalty. Evidence, admissibility 
 of. Pi-ofits. 4 Hun (N. Y.), 278; 6 Th. &C. (X. Y.) 568. 
 
 Marsh r. Dodge and Stevenson Manufacturing Co. Reap- 
 ers. Result not patentable. Change of location not patent- 
 able, what is necessary in addition. 6 Fisher, 502; 5 Off. 
 Gaz. 398. 
 
 Marsh v. Sayles. Cultivators. Abandonment, too long de- 
 lay, and invention by another. 5 Fisher, 610; 2 Off. Gaz. 
 398. 
 
 Marsh v. Seymour. Cultivators. Reissues in general. Too 
 bioad assignments of error. "Wliat is invention. Reissue 
 not for same invention. Want of novelty. Several reasons 
 for invalidity. Damages. Infringement, comparison of 
 the machines is best test. 7 Otto, 318; 13 Off. Gaz. 723. 
 
 Marston i'. SwETT. Stoves. Owners in common. Parol 
 agreement. Statute of Frauds. Invalidity as a defense. 
 Counter-claims. 4 Ilun (N. Y.), 153; 6 Th. & C. (X. Y.) 
 534. 
 
 Mason v. Graham. Looms. Particular patent. Want of 
 novelty. Profits. Decree reversed. 23 Wall. 2G1 ; 7 Off. 
 Gaz. 833. 
 
 Mason r. Rowley. Jurisdiction of court of District of Co- 
 lumbia. Mandamus to Commissioner of Patents. 3 A. L. 
 T. (U. S.) R. 8. 
 
 Masury v. Andei!S0n. Paint-cans. Want of novelty, particu- 
 lar patent. 11 Blatch. 102; G Fisher, 457; 4 Off! Gaz. 55.
 
 78 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Masury v. Tiemaxn. Paint-cans. Infringement, circular as 
 evidence. Want of novelty. 8 Blatch. 426; 4 Fisher, 524. 
 
 Matthkws v. Skates. Metallic packing. Charge to jury. 
 Date of invention. Infringement, intent, equivalents. 
 Want of novelty. Patent prima facie evidence. Original 
 inventor, suggestions. 1 Fisher, 602. 
 
 May v. Chaffee. Stave-machine. Territorial grants, what 
 rights are conveyed. 2 Dillon, 385; 5 Fisher, 160. 
 
 McBuRNEY V. Goodyear. India-rubber. Contract, unreason- 
 able delay to elect. Reissues are not new patents. Con- 
 tract before applies after reissue. 11 Gushing (Mass.), 569. 
 
 McCay v. Burr. Bridges. Deficiency of notice of special 
 matter camaot be supplied by special plea. License. Aban- 
 donment. 6 Penn. St. 117. 
 
 McClure 17. Jeffrey. Force-pumps. Note, consideration, 
 implied warranty. 8 Ind. 79. 
 
 McCi.uRG V. Kixgsland. Chilled rollers. Invention by em- 
 ploye. Purchase by corporation before patent issues is pro- 
 tected. Interpretation of statute. 1 How. 202; 2 Robb, 105. 
 
 McCoMB V. Beard. Metallic bale-ties. Particular patent. 
 Infringement, same result, same means. 10 Blatch. 350; 
 6 Fisher, 254; 3 Off. Gaz. 33. 
 
 McCoMB r. Brodie. Metallic bale-ties. Charge to jury. Par- 
 ticular patent. Tliirty days' notice of defense. Patent 
 prima facie evidence of novelty. Patentability. Infiinge- 
 ment, damages. Patented articles must be marked so. 
 1 Woods, 15:5; 5 Fisher, 381; 2 Off. Gaz. 117. 
 
 McCoMB V. Ernest. Metallic bale-ties. Patentee may sue 
 for any one device covered by his patent. What " utility " 
 is. Want of novelty. Extensions strengthen presumption 
 of patent's validity. Patentability of changes which pro- 
 duce new results. What "undisturbed possession " is. 
 When injunctions will issue against defendants holding a 
 patent. 1 Woods, 195. 
 
 McCoRMiCK r. Manny. Reaper. Particular patent. In- 
 fringement, combination. A part not new can only be 
 claimed in combination. Want of novelty. Patents for 
 improvements. Public use, equivalents. McLean, 539.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 79 
 
 McCoRMiCK r. Seymour. Reaper. Charge to jury. Want 
 of novelty. Original inventor. Patentability. Infringe- 
 ment, ideas of plaintiff. Abandonment, sale by inventor 
 within two years not conclusive. Damages, actual dam- 
 ages and profits he would have made. Reversed. 2 Blatch. 
 240. 
 
 McCoRMicK r. Seymour. Reaper. Charge to jury. Peculiar 
 disadvantages. AVhat novelty is. Patentability of improve- 
 ments. Abandoned experiments. Infringement, appro- 
 priation of plaintiff's ideas. Damages. 3 Blatch. 209. 
 
 McCoRMicK V. Talcott. Reaper. Patents for combinations, 
 only infringed by same combination. Patentee for im- 
 provements not entitled to equivalents. 20 How. 402. 
 
 McCuLLY V. Cunninghams. Fruit-jar. Want of novelty, 
 utility. 19 Pitts. L. J. 142. 
 
 McDonald v. Blackmer. Skirt-protector. Patent sustained. 
 9 Off. Gaz. 746. 
 
 McDouGALL V. Fogg. Gas machinery. Contract, plaintiff 
 must show performance on his side. Patent only prima facie 
 valid. Exclusion of evidence. 2 Bosw. (N. Y.) 387. 
 
 McDowell v. Meredith. Corn-sheller. Notice of evidence, 
 sufficient. Deed, patent, no title. 4 Whart. (Penn.) 
 311. 
 
 McGaw v. Bryan. Staining India silks. Want of novelty. 
 Application to repeal patent. 1 U. S. L. J. 582. 
 
 McKay i\ Wooster. Egg-transporter. Article sold passes 
 out of monopoly. What rights territorial assignees have. 
 Assignments without restriction. 2 Sawyer, 373; G Fisher, 
 375; 3 Off. Gaz. 441. 
 
 McKernan v. IIite. Note. Assignment, recording, valid with- 
 out. 6 Ind. 428. 
 
 McMahon v. Tyng. Car-wheels. Rulings before defendant's 
 case is put in. Adverse report of examiner on exten.sion 
 not competent to show want of novelty. 14 Allen (Mass.), 
 1C7.
 
 80 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 McMiLLiN V. Barclay. Capstans. Equity jurisdiction over 
 patents, prior suit at law not a prerequisite. Patent 
 prima facie evidence of original inventor. Public use. 
 Abandonment, want of novelty. 5 Fisher, 189. 
 
 Meissner v. Devoe Manufacturing Co. Stop-valves for 
 casks. Patentee has to stand or fall by his claims. Par- 
 ticular patent, same form. 9 Blatch. 363; 5 Fisher, 285; 
 2 OfE. Gaz. 545. 
 
 Mellus v. Silsbee. Plank-protector. Dedication. On sale, 
 consent of patentee. 4 Mason, 108; 1 Robb, 506. 
 
 Merchant v. Lewis. Water-wheel. Construction of sect. 14 
 of Patent Act of 1836. Damages in discretion of the court. 
 1 Bond, 172. 
 
 Merriam v. Drake. Whip-sockets. Particular patent. State 
 of art. Patentability. No infringement. 9 Blatch. 336; 
 5 Fisher, 259. 
 
 Merriam v. Van Nest. Whip-sockets. Infringement, dif- 
 ferent methods. 13 Off. Ga^. 597. 
 
 Merrill, Rufus S. Lamps. Appeals from Commissioner, 
 Two inventions are the same if so in fact, though different 
 in effect. 5 Off. Gaz. 120. 
 
 Merrill v. Yeomans. Hydrocarbon oils. Particular patent. 
 State of art. Claims for art and manufacture. Infringe- 
 ment, different process. 1 Holmes, 331 ; 5 Off. Gaz. 267. 
 
 Merrill v. Yeomans. Hydrocarbon oils. Process not in- 
 fringed by sale of product. Claims must be regarded 
 distinct from specification. Invention generally. New 
 combinations. Rights of inventors. Clearness in specifi- 
 cation. Above affirmed. 4 Otto, 568; 11 Off. Gaz. 970. 
 
 Mers iJ. CoNOVER. Wood-splitting machine. What " profits " 
 are. Decree affirmed. 11 Off. Gaz. 1111. 
 
 Merserole v. Union Paper Collar Co. Paper collars. 
 Jurisdiction, citizenship, invalidity of patents. Suits to 
 vacate patents. 6 Blatch. 356 ; 3 Fisher, 483.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 81 
 
 Metallic Cartridge Co. (See Union Metallic Car- 
 tridge Co.) 
 
 Metropolitan Washing Machine Co. v. Earle. India- 
 rubber. Agreements. Patentee cannot control use of 
 thing sold. Public will not recognize his agreement with 
 licensees destroying competition. 3 Wall. Jr. 320 ; 2 
 Fisher, 203. 
 
 Metropolitan Washing Machine Co. v. Providence 
 Tool Co. Clothes-wringers. Reissue not for same in- 
 vention, apparent on its face or not. State of the art. 
 i Holmes, 161. 
 
 Metropolitan Washing Machine Co. v. Providence 
 Tool Co. Clothes-wringer. Particular patent. Above 
 affirmed. 20 WaU. 342. 
 
 Metropolitan Wringing IMachine Co. v. Young. Clothes- 
 wringers. Particular patent. Reissue not for same in- 
 vention. Infringement. 14 Blatch. 46. 
 
 Meyer v. Bailey. Hydrants. " Assignees " and " grantees." 
 Assignees must join in surrender and reissue. 8 Off. Gaz. 
 437. 
 
 Meyer i'. Pritchard. Rubber overshoes. Particular patent. 
 Want of novelty. New application of old device not patent- 
 able. 12 Blatch. 101 ; 7 Off. Gaz. 1012. 
 
 Michigan Southern and Northern Indiana Railroad v. 
 TuRRiLL. (See Cawood Patent.) 
 
 MiDDLEBROOK V. Broadbent. Paper-making. Contract, 
 State court has jurisdiction even if validity of patent is in- 
 volved. 47 N. Y. 443. 
 
 Middletown Tool Co. v. Judd. Self-mousing hook. Title 
 of complainants to reissue prima facie. Reissue not for 
 same invention. Patent prima facie valid. Want of 
 novelty. Original inventor. Colorable changes. Amount 
 of invention required. 3 Fisher, 141. 
 
 Middlings Purifying Co. (See American Middlings 
 Purifier Co.)
 
 82 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 MiDKiFF V. BoGGESS. Steel spring. N^ote, void patent, no 
 consideration. 15 Ind. 210. 
 
 Miller v. Androscoggin Pulp Co. Wood pulp. Prelim- 
 inary injunctions. State of the art. Particular patent. 
 Undisputed possession. 1 Holmes, 142; 5 Fisher, 340; 1 
 Off. Gaz. 409. 
 
 Miller & Co. v. Bridgeport Brass Co. "Lamps. Par- 
 ticular patent. Reissue not for same invention. Combina- 
 tion changed. 14 Blatch. 282; 12 Off. Gaz. 667. 
 
 Miller and Peters Manufacturing Co. v. Du Brul. 
 
 Cigar-moulds. Power of Commissioner to reissue. Reissue 
 not for same invention. Degree of novelty required. 12 
 Off. Gaz. 351. 
 
 Miller's Falls Co. v. Ives & Co. Bit-stocks. Particular 
 patent. Want of novelty. Equivalents. 14 Blatch. 169; 
 14 Off. Gaz. 203. 
 
 MiLLiGAN AND HiGGiNS Glue Co. V. IJpTON. GluB. Reissue 
 not for same invention. Power of Commissioner to reissue. 
 Fraud not open. Want of novelty. Particular patent. 
 Patentability, greater convenience. 6 Off. Gaz. 837. 
 
 MiLLiGAN AND HiGGiNS Glue Co. V. IJpTON. Glue. Want 
 of novelty, mere change of form. 7 Otto, 3. 
 
 Mini's Assignee v. Adams. (See Child v. Adams.) 
 
 Mitchell v. Hawley. Felting hats. Articles sold pass out 
 of monopoly of patent. Distinction between right to make 
 and vend and right to use. Patentee's rights against pur- 
 chasers. Decree affirmed. 16 Wall. 544; 3 Off. Gaz. 241. 
 
 Mitchell v. Tilghman. Fats. Exclusive jurisdiction is in 
 circuit courts. Particular patent. Originality. Practical- 
 ness. Infringement, same process. 19 Wall. 287. 
 
 Moffitt v. Gaar. Threshing-machine. Patent-rights the 
 creature of statute. Surrendered patents. Infringement 
 before reissue. 1 Bond, 315; 1 Fisher, 610. 
 
 Moffitt v. Gaar. Threshing-machine. Surrendered patent 
 stops suits, and they cannot be revived. Above affirmed. 
 1 Black, 273.
 
 LIST OP CASES. 83 
 
 MoNCE V. Adams. Glass-cutter. Particular patent. Utility 
 and economy. Want of novelty. State of art. Ambi- 
 guity in patents. 12 Blatch. 1; 7 Off. Gaz. 177. 
 
 Montague v. Boston and Faikhaven Iron Works. Print- 
 ing-press. Foreclosure and redemption of mortgage. 
 Equity jurisdiction of State court. 108 Mass. 248. 
 
 Moody v. Fiske. Cotton-speeder. Patent claiming several 
 improvements is avoided by showing that one was not 
 original. Infringement generally. Combinations. 2 Mason, 
 112; 1 Robb, 312. 
 
 Moody v. Taber. Corsets. Particular patent. Want of 
 novelty, weak evidence. 1 Holmes, 325; 5 Off. Gaz. 273. 
 
 Moore v. Bare. Lath-machine. Contract, assignment. 
 Title to convey. Defendant's title, defective. 11 Iowa, 
 198. 
 
 Moore v. Marsh. Grain-drills. Interest required for suit at 
 law on patents. Inventor who has parted with patent can 
 sue for infringements while he owned it. 7 Wall. 515. 
 
 Moore v. Thomas. Grain-drills. Particular patent. In- 
 fringement. 14 Off. Gaz. 1. 
 
 Morehead v. Jones. Door-locks. Amendment to answer, 
 striking out admission of use of articles, no laches. 3 Wall. 
 Jr. 306. 
 
 Morey I". LocKwooD. Syringe. Reissue not for same in- 
 vention. Want of novelty. 8 Wall. 230. 
 
 Morris v. Barrett. Wood-bending machine. Charge to 
 jury. Experts as witnesses. Infringement. 1 Bond, 254; 
 1 Fisher, 461. 
 
 Morris ». Huntington. Stop-cock. Charge to jury. "Use" 
 means by others than patentee. Prior patent not surren- 
 dered or repealed avoids present patent. " Vacatur." 
 Estoppel of patentee to dispute his own patent. 1 Paine, 
 348; 1 Robb, 448. 
 
 Morris v. Lowell Manufacturing Co. Cotton-gin. Pre- 
 liminary injunctions, circumstances of the parties, ir- 
 reparable mischief, responsibility of defendant. 3 Fisher, 
 67.
 
 84 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Morris v. Royer. Wood-bending machine. Reissue not for 
 same invention, strong legal presumption the other way. 
 "Want of novelty. Infringement, comparison of the two 
 machines. 2 Bond, 66 ; 3 Fisher, 176. 
 
 Morris v. Shelburne. Dredging-machine. Preliminary in- 
 junctions, no prior decisions, single machine, security for 
 costs. 8 Blatch. 266; 4 Fisher, 377. 
 
 Morse v. Bain. Telegraph. Date of foreign patents. More 
 than one reissue. Reissue not for same invention. 9 
 West. L. J. 106. 
 
 Morse v. Davis. Harvesters. General issue, special pleas. 
 Hypothetical pleas are bad. Sales by agent. 5 Blatch. 
 40. 
 
 Morse v. Oreilly. Telegraph. Equity never enforces for- 
 feiture. Contract. Injunction against waste. 6 Penn. 
 L. J. 501. 
 
 Morse Fountain Pen Co. v. Esterbrook Steel Pen 
 Manufacturing Co. Fountain pens. Preliminary in- 
 junctions. Verbal admission of infringement. Infringe- 
 ment clear. 3 Fisher, 515. 
 
 Morse Twist Drill and Machine Co. v. Morse. Twist- 
 drills. Contracts in restraint of trade. Agreement to con- 
 vey future inventions. 103 Mass. 73. 
 
 Morton v. New York Eye Infirmary. Surgical opera- 
 tions. Patent-rights are creature of statute. Particular 
 patent. Want of novelty. 5 Blatch. 116; 2 Fisher, 320. 
 
 MoTTE V. Bennett. Planing-machine. Seventh amendment. 
 Suits for infringement by jury. Treble damages by sect. 14 
 of act of 1836. Suit at law not a prerequisite. Trials by 
 juiy. Practice in England and here. Infringement is a 
 question for the jury. 2 Fisher, 642. 
 
 MowRY V. Grand Street and Newtown Railroad. Horse- 
 car brakes. Construction of assignment, effect on ex- 
 tension. Title of plaintiffs. 10 Blatch. 89; 5 Fisher, 
 586.
 
 LIST OP CASES. 85 
 
 MowRY V. Whitney. Car-wheels. State of art. Particular 
 patent. Want of novelty. Utility. Infringement, same 
 process. Accounts, profits. Decree reversed. 14 Wall. 
 620; 5 Fisher, 494; 1 Off. Gaz. 492. 
 
 MovvKY V. Whitney. Car-wheels. Scire facias. Govern- 
 ment alone can vacate patents. 14 Wall. 434; 5 Fisher, 
 513; 1 Off. Gaz. 499. 
 
 MuLFORD V. Pearce. Chains for necklaces. Particular 
 patent, want of novelty. 13 Blatcli. 173; 9 Off. Gaz. 204. 
 
 MuLFORD V. Pearce. Chains for necklaces. Master's report. 
 Damages, profits by use of patented over unpatented arti- 
 cles. 14 Blatch. 141; 11 Off. Gaz. 741. 
 
 Mulliken v. Latchem. Renovating feathers. Note, assign- 
 ment not recorded, so no title in seller. 7 Blackf . (Ind.) 
 130. 
 
 MuNDE V. Lambie. Folding-tables. Assignment, admissibil- 
 ity of evidence. 122 Mass. 336. 
 
 MuNROE V. Dover Stamping Co. Egg-beater. Particular 
 patent. Infringement. 1 Holmes, 413; 6 Off. Gaz. 685. 
 
 Murphy v. Eastham. Brush-head. Original inventor. 
 Abandoned experiments. Infringement, change of form. 
 1 Holmes, 113; 5 Fisher, 306; 2 Off. Gaz. 61. 
 
 Murphy v. Kissling. Brush-head. Infringement, change of 
 form. 1 Holmes, 432; 7 Off. Gaz. 302. 
 
 MuscAN Hair Manufacturing Co. v. American Hair 
 Manufacturing Co. Treating moss. Preliminary in- 
 junctions, short time since issue of patent, exclusive pos- 
 session, slight proof of infringement. 4 Blatch. 174 ; I 
 Fisher, 320. 
 
 Myers v. Dunbar. Sawing-machine. Particular patent. 
 Disclaimers. When costs are not allowed. Original in- 
 ventor. Infringement, mechanical change. 8 Blatch. 446; 
 4 Fisher, 493. 
 
 Myers v. Dunbar. Attachment for payment of Master's fees. 
 8 Off. Gaz. 321.
 
 86 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Myers v. Frame. Sawing-machine. Particular patent. 
 Disclaimers. When costs are not allowed. Original in- 
 ventor. Infringement, mechanical change. 8 Blatch. 446 : 
 4 Fisher, 493. 
 
 Myers v. Swift. Sawing-machine. Particular patent. Dis- 
 ' claimers. When costs are not allowed. Original inventor. 
 Infringement, mechanical change. 8 Blatch. 446 ; 4 Fisher, 
 493. 
 
 N. 
 
 Nail Factory. (See Troy Iron and Nail Factory.) 
 
 National Car Spring Co. v. Union Car Spring Co. 
 Rubber springs. Reissue not for same invention. Reissues 
 by statute. Want of novelty, abandoned experiments. 12 
 Blatch. 80; 6 Off. Gaz. 224. 
 
 National Filtering Oil Co. v. Arctic Oil Co. Purify- 
 ing oil. Original inventor, want of novelty. Printed 
 publications. 4 Fisher, 514. 
 
 National Hay Rake Co. v. Harbert. Bill not sworn to 
 praying injunction and discovery under oath, held suffi- 
 cient on demurrer. Domicile of corporation not necessarily 
 stated. 2 Weekly Notes, 100. 
 
 Needham v. Washburn. Car-wheels. Patentability in 
 general. Original inventor, patent prima facie evidence. 
 Defendants sued as copartners turn out to be corporation, 
 may be cured by amendment. Want of novelty, partic- 
 ular patent. 7 Off. Gaz. 649. 
 
 Nellis v. McLanahan. Hay-elevators. Multifariousness, 
 several patents, must allege that all are infringed by same 
 machine. 6 Fisher, 286. 
 
 Nesmith v. Calvert. Cotton-cleaner. Jurisdiction under 
 United States laws. Contract, specific performance and 
 account. When objection of citizenship should be taken. 
 Interpretation of contract. 1 W. & M. 34; 2 Robb. 311. 
 
 Nevins v. Johnson. Dough-machine. Equity jurisdiction 
 of circuit courts in patents. Expired patents. 3 Blatch. 
 80.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 87 
 
 Newbury v. Bay State Scuew Co. Agreement to assign 
 annulled, no action lies. 7 Allen, 257. 
 
 Newell v. Gatling. Wheat-drill. Rescission of contract, 
 false representations. 7 Iiid. 147. 
 
 Newell v. West. Recording assignments. Right of execu- 
 trix. 13 Blatch. 114; 8 Off. Gaz. 598; s. c. 9 Off. Gaz. 
 1110. 
 
 New York. (See City of New York.) 
 
 New Y'ork Rubber Co. v. Chaskel. Elastic toy. In- 
 fringement, particular patent. 9 Off. Gaz. 923. 
 
 New York Wire Rail Co. v. Walker. Wire fences. Con- 
 tempt, violation of injunction. 2 Fisher, 179. 
 
 Nichols v. Newell. Lamps. Word " patent " put on un- 
 patented articles. Penalty. 1 Fisher, 647. 
 
 Nichols r. Pearce. Hat-pouncing. Original inventor. 
 
 Proper parties defendant. 7 Blatch. 5. 
 Nickel Co. (See United Nickel Co.) 
 
 NicoLSON Pavement Co. (See American Nicolson Pave- 
 ment Co.) 
 
 North v. Kershaw. Harness-saddles. Preliminary injunc- 
 tions, no prior decisions, right and infringement must be 
 clear. 4 Blatch. 70. 
 
 Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Philadelphia 
 Fire Extinguisher Co. Extinguishing fires. Mis- 
 nomer of one inventor in a patent. Administrator's ap- 
 pointment not open collaterally. Patents to administrators. 
 Want of novelty, printed publications. Rejected patent 
 as evidence. Practicability, abandoned experiments. 6 
 Off. Gaz. 34. 
 
 NoRWALK Lock Co. v. Berger. Locks. Decree. 13 Off. 
 Gaz. 47. 
 
 NouRSE V. Allen. Reaper. Multifariousness, several patents, 
 connected use. 4 Blatch. 376 ; 3 Fisher, 63. 
 
 NusBAUM V. Emery. Distilling-raeters. Patented articles pre- 
 scribed by government. Money deposited for them is not 
 recoverable. Distiller estopped. 3 Bissell, 469.
 
 88 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Nye v. Raymond. Saw-mill. Bond, invalidity of patent as a 
 defense. 16 111. 153. 
 
 0. 
 
 Odiorne v. Amesbury Nail Factory. Nail-machines. Two 
 patents for same invention at same time not allowed. 2 
 Mason, 28; 1 Robb, 300. 
 
 Odiorne v. Denney. Umbrella-cases. Infringement, color- 
 able alterations. 13 Off. Gaz. 965. 
 
 Odiorne v. Winkley. Nail-machines. Testing credibility of 
 witness. Infringement, colorable alterations. Who is en- 
 titled to a patent. Surreptitious patents. 2 Gall. 51; 1 
 Robb, 52. 
 
 Ogle v. Ege. Plow. Assignee cannot sue in equity. Rules for 
 gi-anting injunctions. 4 Wash. 584; 1 Robb, 516. 
 
 Oil Co. (See National Filtering Oil Co.) 
 
 Olcott v. Hawkins. Planing-machine. Infringement, par- 
 ticular patent. 2 Am. L. J. (9 Penn. L. J.) 317. 
 
 Oliver, Finnie, & Co. v. Morgan. Yeast. Interpretation of 
 agreement, consideration. Rights of administratrix versus 
 assignee. Damages. 10 Ileisk. (Tenn.) 322. 
 
 Ore Co. (See Gold and Silver Ore Co.) 
 
 Oreilly v. Morse. Telegraph. Original inventor, particu- 
 lar patent. Information obtained from scientific men. 15 
 How. 62. 
 
 Ormsbee v. Wood. Camera, plate-holder. Particular patent. 
 3 Fisher, 372. 
 
 Orr v. Badger. Air-tight stoves. Dissolving injunctions, 
 long possession by plaintiff, discretion of the court, vier- 
 dict at law. 7 Law Rep. 465. 
 
 Orr v. Burwell. Saw. Interpretation of contract. 15 Ala. 
 378. 
 
 Orr v. Littlefield. Stoves. Injunctions, undisturbed pos- 
 session, sleeping on his rights, injury to defendants. 1 
 W. &M. 13; 2 Robb, 323.
 
 LIST OP CASES. 
 
 89 
 
 Orr v. Merrill. Stoves. Dissolution of injunctions. Trials 
 at law. Proper answers. 1 W. & M. 376; 2 llobb, 331. 
 
 OsBORN V. IIerrox. Washing-machine . Rejection of evi- 
 dence. Receiving notes as agent, void notes, machines 
 sold. 28 Ga. 313. 
 
 Pacific Iron Works v. Newhall. Steam-engines. Fore- 
 closure of mortgage. Notes for payment. Seller not in- 
 ventor. Interpretation of contract. Illegal representations. 
 Set-off. 34 Conn. 67. 
 
 Packet Co. v. Sickles. Steam-engine. Interpretation of 
 parol contract. 10 How. 419 . 
 
 Packet Co. v. Sickles. Steam-engine. Rule of court not 
 made part of bill of exceptions. Damages. References to 
 a Master. 19 Wall. 611. 
 
 Packing Co. (See Wilson Packing Co.) 
 
 Page v. Dickerson. Working iron. State jurisdiction in 
 patent suits. Note, no consideration, false representations. 
 28 Wis. 694. 
 
 Page v. Ferry. Circulnr-saw mills. Charge to jury. Gen- 
 eral issue. Infringement. Object of patent laws. Patent- 
 ability. 1 Fisher, 298. 
 
 Paper Bag Machine Co. (See Union Paper Bag Machine 
 Co.) 
 
 Paper Co. (See American Wood Paper Co.) 
 
 Paper Collar Co. (See Union Paper Collar Co.) 
 
 Parham v. American Button-hole, Overseamixg, and 
 Sewing Maohine Co. Sewing-machine. Authority to 
 reissue. Reissue not for same invention. ]\Iere function 
 not patentable. Want of novelty. Infringement, combina- 
 tion. 4 Fisher, 468. 
 
 Park v. Little. Fire-engines. Agreement to assign does not 
 bar suit. Novelty, utility, infringement. 3 Wash. 196; 1 
 Robb, 17.
 
 90 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Parker v. Bamker. Water-wheel. No plea being filed, dec- 
 laration is taken as admitted. Damages. 6 McLean, 631. 
 
 Parker v. Bigleu. Water-wheel. Retaxing costs, expense of 
 models, marshal's fees for witnesses out of State. 1 Fisher, 
 285. 
 
 Parker v. Brant. Water-wheel. Preliminary injunctions. 
 Verdicts at law. Want of novelty. 1 Fisher, 58. 
 
 Parker v. Corbin. Water-wheels. Unwitting infringement, 
 only compensatory damages. 4 McLean, 462; 2 Robb,736. 
 
 Parker v. Ferguson. Watei--wheel. Want of novelty. 1 
 
 Blatch. 407. 
 Parker v. Hallock. No statute of limitations in patents. 2 
 
 Fisher, 543. 
 
 Parker v. Hatfield. Water-wheel. Issues for jury or for 
 masters. Injunction may be issued on such report. Want 
 of novelty. 4 McLean, 61. 
 
 Parker v. Hawk. Water-wheel. Plea of State statute of 
 limitations is good. 2 Fisher, 58. 
 
 Parker v. Haworth. Water-wheels. Assignments in whole 
 or part. Allegation that infringement was contrary to 
 statute is not necessary. Infringement, combination, must 
 use all the parts. 4 McLean, 370; 2 Robb, 725. 
 
 Parker v. Hulme. Water-wheel. Charge to jury. Con- 
 struction of patent is for court. Patentability. Original 
 inventor, ■pa.tent prima facie evidence. Infringement, dam- 
 ages. 1 Fisher, 44. 
 
 Parker v. Remhof. Box-fastenings. Infringement, equiva- 
 lents. Want of novelty, burden of proof. 14 Off. Gaz. 
 601. 
 
 Parker v. Sears. Water-wheel. Preliminai-y injunctions, 
 what court is bound to do, hardship on defendant. 1 Fisher, 
 93. 
 
 Parker v. Stiles. Water-wheel. Charge to jury. Patents 
 are not monopolies. Uncertainty in specification. Patents 
 are liberally construed. Original inventor. Want of nov- 
 elty. Patentability, utility. Infringement, burden of 
 proof, mechanical equivalents. 5 McLean, 44.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 91 
 
 Parkhurst V. Kinsman. Cotton-machine. Original inventor. 
 Estoppel by agreement. Agreement in restraint of trade. 
 Change of form. 1 Blatch. 488. 
 
 Parsons v. Barnard. No State jurisdiction in patent suits. 
 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 144. 
 
 Patterson v. Commonwealth. Illuminating oils. Sales of 
 patented articles. State legislation. Right of patentee to 
 sell. Injury to public morals, health, or safety. 11 Bush 
 (Ky.), 311. 
 
 Patterson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky. Aurora oil. 
 Constitutionality of Kentucky law regulating sale of pat- 
 ented oil. 7 Otto, 501. 
 
 Peabody v. Norfolk. Cloth machinery. Contract. Inven- 
 tion kept secret, injunction against disclosure. 98 Mass. 
 452. 
 
 Pearl v. Ocean Mills. Bobbins and spindles. Want of 
 novelty, state of art. Reissue not for same invention. Prior 
 knowledge and use. 11 Off. Gaz. 2. 
 
 Peck v. Bacon. Shingle-machine. Note, amending decla- 
 ration by new count. Testimony. 18 Conn. 377. 
 
 Peck v. Farrington. Shingle-machine. Note, void patent. 
 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 44. 
 
 Peek v. Frame. Sawing-machine. Increasing damages, ag- 
 gravated conduct of defendant. 9 Blatch. 194; 5 Fisher, 
 113. 
 
 Peek v. Frame. Sawing-machine. Allowance of costs. 5 
 Fisher, 211. 
 
 Pelton v. Waters. Lubricators. Several applications, issue 
 presumed to be on first. Accidental making is not inven- 
 tion. Infringement. 7 Off. Gaz. 425. 
 
 Pencil Co. (See Rubber Tip Pencil Co.) 
 
 Pennock, J. L. Rolling iron. Appeals from Commissioner. 
 Patentability, particular patent. 5 Off. Gaz. 668. 
 
 Pennock v. Beale. Puddling-furnace. Decree. 13 Off. Gaz. 
 125.
 
 92 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Penxock v. Dialogue. Tube-making. Original inventor, 
 patent />ro?!a/acje evidence. Abandonment. 4 Wash. 538; 
 1 Robb, 466. 
 
 Pennock v. Dialogue. Tube-making. Irregular putting evi- 
 dence on record. What " not known or used before his 
 application " means. 2 Peters, 1; 1 Robb, 542. 
 
 Pennsylvania Salt Co. v. Gugenheim. Putting up salt. 
 Particular patent. State of the art. Proper subjects of 
 patents. 3 Fisher, 423. 
 
 Pennsylvania Salt Co. v. Myers. Successive bills for con- 
 tinuing infringements. Preliminary injunction granted, 
 pendency of other suit. 1 Weekly Notes, 377. 
 
 Pennsylvania Salt Co. v. Thomas. Caustic alkalies. Re- 
 issue not for same invention. Patentability shown by 
 utility. Infringement, foi-mal differences. 5 Fisher, 148. 
 
 Pentlarge v. Beeston. Bungs for casks. Preliminary in- 
 junctions, plaintiff having patent, defendant not. Original 
 inventor. 14 Blatch. 352. 
 
 Perrigo y. Spaulding. Clover-machine. Patentee having full 
 satisfaction from maker cannot sue purchaser of a machine 
 covered by the decree. 13 Blatch. 389; 12 Off. Gaz. 352. 
 
 Perry i\ Corning. Stoves. Jurisdiction, bills for discovery 
 and account, bills for account only. 6 Blatch. 134. 
 
 Perry v. Corning. Stoves. Recording assignments. Ade- 
 quate remedy at law. Title of plaintiff. Warranty. 7 
 Blatch. 195. 
 
 Petkrson v. Wooden. Stove. Too large claims, void pro 
 tanto under act of 1837. Bad declaration, leave to amend. 
 3 McLean, 248. 2 Robb, 116. 
 
 Pettibone v. Derringer. Fire-arras. Uncertainty in speci- 
 fication. Depositions de bene esse. AYhat depositions may 
 be admitted. 4 Wash. 215; 1 Robb, 152. 
 
 Phelps v. Brown. Brass kettles. Purpose of caveats. 4 
 Blatch. 362; 1 Fisher, 479.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 93 
 
 Philadelphia and Trenton Railroad v. Stimpsox. Turn- 
 ing sliort curves. Admission of evidence. Reissues prima 
 facie valid. Proper questions to witness. 14 Peters, 448; 
 2 Robb, 46. 
 
 Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad. 
 (See Railroad Co. v. Dubois; Railroad Co. v. Trim- 
 ble.) 
 
 Phillip V. Nock. Ink-stands. Measure- of damages. 17 Wall. 
 460. 
 
 Phillips v. Combstock. Right of special pleas. 4 McLean, 
 525; 2 Robb, 724. 
 
 Phillips v. Page. Saw-mill. Instructions to jury. Construc- 
 tion of patents. Time of prior knowledge. 24 How. 164. 
 
 Pickering i'. McCulloch. Plumbago crucible. Abandon- 
 ment, evidence of. 13 Off. Gaz. 818. 
 
 Pickering v. Phillips. Plumbago crucible. Thirty days' 
 notice of prior use, &c. Want of novelty, patent prima 
 facie evidence. Agreement. Infringement, taken as a 
 whole. 10 Off. Gaz. 420. 
 
 Pierce r. Wilson. Loom. Rescission of contracts in equity, 
 fraud, laches, parol evidence. 34 Ala. 596. 
 
 PiERSON V. Eagle Screw Co. Screw-machine. Bona fide 
 purchasers. Abandonment. Damages. 3 Story, 402; 2 
 Robb, 208. 
 
 Pike v. Potter. Preserving meat. Object of patent law. 
 Fraud of government, limitations not accepted by patentee. 
 Construction of patents. Clearness in specification. 3 
 Fisher, 55. 
 
 Pike v. Providence and Worcester Railroad. Si>ark- 
 arrester. Construction of patents, state of art. Infringe- 
 ment, substantial identity. 1 Holmes, 445 ; 6 Off. Gaz. 575. 
 
 Pin Co. (See American Pin Co.) 
 
 Piper v. Brown. Preserving fish. What patents are for. 
 Date of invention. Principle is not patentable. Infringe- 
 ment, process. 1 Holmes, 20; 4 Fisher, 175.
 
 94 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Piper v. Brown. Preserving fish. Master's report. Profits. 
 Findings of fact. 1 Holmes, 196; 6 Fisher, 240; 3 Off. 
 Gaz. 97. 
 
 Piper v. Moon. Preserving fish. Particular patent, want of 
 novelty. 10 Blatch. 261; 6 Fisher, 180; 3 Off. Gaz. 4. 
 
 Piper v. Moon. Preserving fish. Above afiirmed. 1 Otto, 
 44; 10 Off. Gaz. 420. 
 
 Pitcher v. United States. Brooms. Use by warden of 
 penitentiary. Use by United States government is not a 
 taking of private property for public use, but is an infringe- 
 ment. Court of claims has no jurisdiction in such cases. 
 1 N. & H. 7. 
 
 Pitts v. Edmonds. Planing-machine. Original inventor, 
 patent prima facie evidence. Want of novelty must be 
 specially set up. Infringement, combination. 1 Bissell, 
 168; 2 Fisher, 52. 
 
 Pitts v. Hall. Horse-power. Charge to jury. Original in- 
 ventor, under patent law. Forfeiture. Abandonment. 
 Damages. 2 Blatch. 229. 
 
 Pitts v. Hall. Horse-power. Agreement. Joint patentees 
 are not copartners. Rights of joint owners. 3 Blatch. 201. 
 
 Pitts v. Jameson. Threshing-machine. Agreement inter- 
 preted. Authority to build, no bar to action. 15 Barb. 
 (N. Y.) 310. 
 
 Pitts v. Wemple. Planing-machine. Construction of pat- 
 ents, state of art. Want of novelty, practical. Infringe- 
 ment, one claim, colorable alteration. 1 Bissell, 87; 2 
 Fisher, 10. 
 
 Pitts v. Whitman. Threshing-machine. Bona fide pur- 
 chasers. Assignments, time to record. Form of instruc- 
 tions to jury. Profert of letters-patent makes them part of 
 declaration. Construction of patents. 2 Story, 609; 2 
 Robb, 189. 
 
 Plastic Slate Roofing Joint Stock Co. v. Moore. Com- 
 position roof. Want of novelty, prior use. 1 Holmes, 167.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 96 
 
 Platt v. United States Patent Button, Rivet Needle, 
 AND Machine Manufacturing Co. Buttons, &c. Par- 
 ticular patent, utility, want of novelty. 9 Blatch. 342; 5 
 Fi-sher, 205; 1 Off. Gaz. 524. 
 
 Platts, Ex Parte. Crimping leather. Right to reissue. Prac- 
 tice of putting reissues in interference with unexpired 
 patents condemned. 15 Off. Gaz. 827. 
 
 Poillon v. Schmidt. Steam-tight joints. Particular patent. 
 Validity of claims to cover art. 6 Blatch. 299 ; 3 Fisher, 
 476. 
 
 PoppENHusEN V. Falke. Treating caoutchouc. Joint in- 
 fringers. Preliminary injunctions. Prior decision. Re- 
 issue not for same invention. Reissue prima facie good. 
 4 Blatch. 493; 2 Fisher, 181. 
 
 PoppENHUSEN V. Falke. Treating caoutchouc. Amount 
 of inventive skill required. Infringement, equivalents. 
 Reissues after adverse decisions on patent may be good. 5 
 Blatch. 46; 2 Fisher, 213. 
 
 Poppenhusen v. New York Gutta-percha Comb Co. 
 Treating caoutchouc. Construction of patents for the court. 
 Patent jsriffia /aci'e evidence of original inventor. Want of 
 novelty. 2 Fisher, 62. 
 
 Poppenhusen v. New York Gutta-percha Comb Co. 
 Treating caoutchouc. Preliminary injunctions, object of. 
 Prior verdict at law. Future violations. 4 Blatch. 184; 
 2 Fisher, 74. 
 
 Poppenhusen v. New York Gutta-percha Comb Co. 
 Treating caoutchouc. Violation of injunction by using 
 equivalent. 4 Blatch. 253 ; 2 Fisher, 80. 
 
 Potter v. Braunsdorf. Sewing-machine. Reissue by 
 assignee, extension by patentee, held good. 7 Blatch. 97. 
 
 Potter v. Crowell. Sewing-machines. Preliminary in- 
 junctions. Sales by agent. Past injuries which cannot be 
 renewed will not furnish ground for injunction. 1 Abbott, 
 89; 3 Fisher, 112.
 
 96 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Potter v. Davis Sewing Machine Co. Sewing-machine. 
 Infringement, substantial equivalents. 3 Fisher, 472. 
 
 Potter v. Dixon. Sewing-machine. Power of Commissioner 
 in interferences by statute. 5 Blatch. 160; 2 Fisher, 381. 
 
 Pqtter v. Empire Sewing Machine Co. Sewing-machine. 
 Prior decisions. Extension vests whole title without re- 
 gard to where title was at time of reissue. 3 Fisher, 474. 
 
 Potter v. Fuller. Sewing-machine. Preliminary injunc- 
 tions, irreparable injury to defendant, infringement clear, 
 general acquiescence, prior decisions. Original inventor. 
 2 Fisher, 251. 
 
 Potter v. Holland. Sewing-machines. Right to reissue. 
 Assignments and licenses. Right to sue. Disclaimers. 4 
 Blatch. 206; 1 Fisher, 327. 
 
 Potter v. Holland. Sewing-machines. Preliminary injunc- 
 tions, patent prima facie evidence. Reissues. Want of 
 novelty. Patents liberally construed. Quiet enjoyment. 
 Prior decisions. Infringement. 4 Blatch. 238; 1 Fisher, 
 382. 
 
 Potter v. Mack. Sewing-machine. No appeal lies from de- 
 cree for injunction and account till Master reports. In- 
 junction should not be suspended till final deci-ee. 3 
 Fisher, 428. 
 
 Potter v. Muller. Sewing-machine. Preliminary injunc- 
 tions, practice. Original inventor. Want of novelty. 
 Prior decisions. No fixed length of possession. 2 Fisher, 
 465. 
 
 Potter r. Muller. Sewing-machine. Contempt, defendant 
 enjoined from making and selling, begins to sell as agent. 
 1 Bond, 601; 2 Fisher, 631. 
 
 Potter v. Schenck. Sewing-machine. Preliminary injunc- 
 tion. Infringement, substantial variation, same principle. 
 1 Bissell, 515; 3 Fisher, 82. 
 
 Potter v. Stevens. Sewing-machine. Patent applications 
 are ex parte only. Defendant must overcome plaintiff's 
 prima facie case. 2 Fisher, 163.
 
 LIST OP CASES. 97 
 
 Potter v. Thayer. Buttons. Particular patent, invalidity. 
 
 1 Holmes, 293; 6 Fisher, 603; 5 Off. Gaz. 32. 
 
 Potter v. Whitney. Sewing-machine. Granting prelimi- 
 nary injunctions, title, infringement, peculiar circum- 
 stances. 1 Lowell, 87; 3 Fisher, 77. 
 
 Potter v. Wilson. Sewing-machine. Original inventor. 
 Non-joinder. Infringement. 2 Fisher, 102. 
 
 Powder Co. v. Burkhardt. Dualin. Seizure of materials 
 on execution. Contract. 7 Otto, 110. 
 
 Price v. Kelly. Circus-seats. Infringement, want of 
 
 novelty. 11 Off. Gaz. 639. 
 Printing Press Co. (See Bullock Printing Press Co.) 
 
 Prouty r. Draper. Plow. Infringement, combination, must 
 be whole. 1 Story, 568; 2 Robb, 75. 
 
 Prouty v. Ruggles. Plow. Construction of patents. In- 
 fringement, combination, must be whole. 16 Peters, 336; 
 
 2 Robb, 93. 
 
 Providence Rubber Co. r. Goodyear. India-rubber. Sur- 
 rogate jurisdiction, domicile of patentee when he died- 
 Executor's right to reissue. Uncertainty in specification. 
 Original inventor. Patentability in general. Decisions of 
 Commissioner. Interpretation of license. Account, prof- 
 its. 9 Wall. 788. 
 
 Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear. India-rubber. BiU 
 of review, laches. 9 Wall. 805. 
 
 Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear. India-rubber. What 
 constitutes a cross-bill. 9 Wall. 807. 
 
 Putnam v. IIickey. Bottle-stopper fastenings. Original in- 
 ventor. Foreign patents. 3 BisseU, 157; 5 Fisher, 334; 
 2 Off. Gaz. 225. 
 
 Putnam v. Wetherbee. Bottle-stopper fastenings. Want 
 of novelty, state of art. 1 Holmes, 497; 8 Off. Gaz. 320. 
 
 Putnam v. Yerrington. Bottle-stopper fastenings. Change 
 of material not patentable. Want of novelty, burden of 
 proof. Prior decisions. Reissue not for same invention. 
 9 Off. Gaz. 6S9. 
 
 7
 
 98 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 R. 
 
 Railroad Co. v. Dubois. Truss-bridges. Construction of 
 patents, combinations. Silence as estoppel. Oral reveal- 
 ing of patented invention before patent. Notice of defenses 
 required. 12 Wall. 47. 
 
 Railroad Co. v. Sayles. (See Chicago and Northwest- 
 ern Railroad v. Sayles.) 
 
 Railroad Co. v. Stimpson. (See Philadelphia and Tren- 
 ton Railroad Co.) 
 
 Railroad Co. v. Trimble. Truss-bridges. Deed of extended 
 patent before extension. 10 Wall. 367. 
 
 Railroad Co. v. Turrill. (See Illinois Central Rail- 
 road Co.) 
 
 Railroad Co. v. Winans. (See York and Maryland 
 
 R.\ILROAD Co.) 
 
 Rake Co. (See Dorsey Harvester and Revolving Rake 
 
 Co. ; National Hay Rake Co.) 
 Ransom v. Mayor of New York. Fire-engines. Waiver of 
 
 conditions imposed by court. Supersedeas. 4 Blatch. 157. 
 
 Ransom v. Mayor of New York. Fire-engines. Charge to 
 jury. Patents are government contracts. Construction of 
 statutes. Original inventor, patent prima facie evidence. 
 Inventive skill. Abandoned experiments. Private use. 
 Reasonable diligence. Abandonment. 1 Fisher, 252. 
 
 Rapp v. Bard. Gold pens. Interfering patents. Patents 
 confined to particular shape. 1 Fisher, 198. 
 
 Rathbone v. Orr. Stove. Assignments before issue, poverty, 
 &c. 5 McLean, 131. 
 
 Read v. Bowman. Harvester. Construction of agreement. 
 Estoppel. Right to reissue. 2 Wall. 591. 
 
 Read v. Miller. Harvester. General issue, special pleas. 
 State Statute of Limitations cannot be pleaded. 2 Bissell, 
 12; 3 Fisher, 310.
 
 LIST OP CASES. 99 
 
 Reckendorfer v. Fader. Lead-pencil and eraser. Want of 
 novelty, state of art. Infringement, narrow claim. 12 
 Blatch. 68; 5 Off. Gaz. 697. 
 
 Reckendorfer v. Faber. Lead-pencil and eraser. Com- 
 missioner's allowance of patent is only prima facie right. 
 What patentable combinations are. 2 Otto, ;M7; 10 Off. 
 Gaz. 71. 
 
 Reed v. Cutter. Pump. Who are entitled to patents. Prior 
 use, extent. Patentability, incompleteness. Disclaimers. 
 1 Story, 590; 2 Robb, 81. 
 
 Reed v. Reed. Head-linings for barrels. Result not patent- 
 able. 12 Blatch. 36G; 8 Off. Gaz. 193. 
 
 Reedy v. Scott. Hoisting-machine. Surrender of patents, 
 bars suits. Infringement of reissue is new cause of action. 
 Reissue must be for same invention. Arbitrators are pre- 
 sumed to decide correctly. 7 Off. Gaz. 463. 
 
 Rees 0. Gould. Steam-engines. Patentable combinations, 
 special notice under general issue. Infringement, combi- 
 nation, omission of one ingredient. 6 Fisher, 106; 2 Off. 
 Gaz. 62L 
 
 Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co. Bridges. Utility. Original 
 inventor, printed publications for private use. Want of 
 novelty, date of invention shown by sketches. 5 Fisher, 
 456; 9 Phila. 368; 1 Off. Gaz. 466. 
 
 Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co. Bridges. Rehearing for 
 new evidence at any time before final decree. Evidence 
 must be material, and no negligence. 9 Off. Gaz. 885. 
 
 Refrigerator Co. (See Lyman Ventilating and Re- 
 frigerating Co.) 
 
 Reissner v. Anness. Coal-oil stoves. Duplicity in pleading. 
 Only one defense in one plea. 12 Off. Gaz. 842. 
 
 Reissner v. Anness. Coal-oil stoves. Pleading, order is rep- 
 lication, then testimony. 13 Off. Gaz. 7. 
 
 Reissner w. Anness. Coal-oil stoves. Reissue presumed valid. 
 Features of model may be in reissue, though not in original. 
 13 Off. Gaz. 870.
 
 100 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Remington v. Ali.en. Fire-arms. Patent of copartner be- 
 longs to firm. 109 Mass. 47. 
 
 Renwick v. Cooper. Fire-arms. Preliminary injunctions. 
 Infringement, particular patent. 10 Blatch. 201 ; 6 Fisher, 
 21. 
 
 Renwick v. Pond. Fire-arms. Original inventor. Reissue 
 not for same invention. 10 Blatch. 39; 5 Fisher, 569; 2 
 Off. Gaz. 392. 
 
 Reutgen v. Kanowrs. Iron-rounder. Original inventor. 
 What infringement is. Clearness in specification. 1 Wash. 
 168; 1 Robb, 1. 
 
 Revolving Rake Co. (See Dorset Harvester and Re- 
 volving Rake Co.) 
 
 Rheem v. Holliday. Water-wheel. Want of novelty, new 
 element to old machine, too broad claims. 16 Penn. St. 347. 
 
 Rice v. Garnhart. Harvester. Agreement to sell. Juris- 
 diction of circuit courts. Invalidity of patent as a defense. 
 34 Wis. 453. 
 
 Rice v. Garnhart. Harvester. Double costs for frivolous 
 appeals. 34 Wis. 470. 
 
 Rice, v. Heald. Steam-boilers. Charge to jury. Who is en- 
 titled to patent. Want of novelty, prior patents. Degree 
 of utility required. Infringement, mechanical substitute. 
 13 Pac. L. R. 33. 
 
 Rich v. Atwater. Planing-machine. Jurisdiction in patent 
 suits. Note, void patent. Admissibility of evidence. 
 Estoppel by license. 16 Conn. 409. 
 
 Rich v. Close. Water-wheel. Patentee entitled only to 
 what he claims. Infringement, combination, leaving out 
 new elements. 8 Blatch. 41; 4 Fisher, 279. 
 
 Rich v. Lippincott. Fire-proof safes. Charge to jury. In- 
 fringement, same composition. Original inventor, patent 
 prima facie evidence. Abandonment. 2 Fisher, 1. 
 
 Rich v. Ricketts. Statute of Limitations, State law is good 
 plea. 7 Blatch. 230.
 
 LIST OP CASES. 101 
 
 Richardson v. Lockwood. Syringe. Want of novelty, par- 
 ticular patent. G Fisher, 454; 4 Off. Gaz. 398. 
 
 Richardson v. Notes. Children's carriages. Want of 
 novelty, not anticipated by incorjiplete invention. Infringe- 
 ment, selling parts to be put together. 10 Off. Gaz. 507. 
 
 Rifle Co. (See United States Rifle Co.) 
 
 RiTTER V. Serrell. Planing-machiue. Assignment, interest 
 conveyed by. 2 Blatch. 379. 
 
 Roberts v. Blck. Refrigerators. Want of notice of evidence 
 cannot be cured by amending answer. 1 Holmes, 224; 6 
 Fisher, 325 ; 3 Off. Gaz. 2(39. 
 
 Roberts v. Buck. Refrigerators. Decree. 1 Otto, 159; 10 
 Off. Gaz. 206. 
 
 Roberts t;. Dickey. Oil-wells. Patentability of " art." Want 
 of novelty, publications. 4 Fisher, 532; 1 Off. Gaz. 4. 
 
 Roberts v. IIarnden. Refrigerators. Original inventor, 
 patent prima facie evidence. Infringement, combination, all 
 the elements; same means and same result. 2 Cliff. 500. 
 
 Roberts v. Reed Torpedo Co. Torpedoes. Original 
 inventor, patent prima facie evidence. Date of invention. 
 3 Fisher, 629. 
 
 Roberts v. Roter. Oil-wells. Construction of patent, state 
 of art. 5 Fisher, 295. 
 
 Roberts v. 11yp:r. Refrigerators. Want of novelty. Origi- 
 nal inventor. 11 Blatch. 11; 6 Fisher, 293; 3 Off. Gaz. 
 551. 
 
 Roberts v. Ryer. Refrigerators. Original inventor, par- 
 ticular patent. New use of old machine is not patentable. 
 1 Otto, 150; 10 Off. Gaz. 204. 
 
 Roberts v. Schuyler. Fire-arms. Motion for new trial, 
 against evidence, when set aside. Weight of jury's deci- 
 sion in patent suits. 12 Blatch. 444. 
 
 Roberts v. Ward. Box-machinery. Degree of utility re- 
 quired. Want of novelty. 4 McLean, 565; 2 Robb, 746. 
 
 Robertson v. Blake. Stone-breaker. Utility. Want of 
 novelty. Infringement, combination. Cross-appeals. 4 
 Otto, 728; 11 Off. Gaz. 877.
 
 102 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Robertson v. Garrett. Hand-stamp. Want of usefulness 
 as a defense. 10 Blatch. 490; 6 Fisher, 278. 
 
 Robertson v. Hill. Hand-stamp. Preliminary injunctions. 
 AVhere patent has been adjudged valid in three decisions, 
 court will hear evidence only on infringement. 6 Fisher, 
 465; 4 Off. Gaz. 132. 
 
 Robertson v. Secombe Manufacturing Co. Hand-stamp. 
 Want of novelty. Reissue not for same invention, putting 
 in a comma. Original inventor. 10 Blatch. 481; 6 Fisher, 
 268; 3 Off. Gaz. 412. 
 
 Robinson, Ex Parte. India-rubber. State legislation against 
 sale of patents is void. 2 Bissell, 309; 4 Fisher, 186. 
 
 Robinson v. Hodge. Car-brake. Liability of administrator, 
 royalties are not " new assets." 117 Mass. 222. 
 
 Rock Drill Co. (See Burleigh Rock Drill Co.) 
 
 Roemer v. Simon. Travelling-bags. Want of notice of wit- 
 ness must be objected to at the time. Prior use without 
 knowledge of patentee avoids his patent. Burden of proof. 
 Foreign prior use, notice. 5 Off. Gaz. 555. 
 
 Roemer v. Simon. Travelling-bags. Prior knowledge, notice 
 in answer that parties are unknown, amended tiunc pro 
 tunc. Above affirmed. 5 Otto, 214; 12 Off. Gaz. 796. 
 
 Rogers v. Abbot. Terms imposed on granting injunctions. 
 4 Wash. 514; 1 Robb, 465. 
 
 Rogers v. Ennis. Table-beverage. Certain patents require 
 narrow grounds. 14 Off. Gaz. 601. 
 
 Rogers v. Sargent. Wire-staple. Reissue not for same in- 
 vention. Patentability of invention. 7 Blatch. 507. 
 
 Roof Co. (See Plastic Slate Roofing Joint-stock Co.) 
 
 Root v. Ball. Stove. Plea of prior use without abandon- 
 ment is demurrable. Same patent cannot cover two distinct 
 machines. 4 McLean, 177; 2 Robb, 513. 
 
 Roots v. Hyndman. Rotary blower case. Want of novelty, 
 particular patent. 6 Fisher, 439 ; 4 Off. Gaz. 29.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 103 
 
 Rose i;. Hurley. Churns. Note, warranty of patent-right. 
 Parol evidence. Fiaudulent representations. Right to 
 rescind, estoppel. 39 Ind. 77. 
 
 Ross V. WoLFixGEii. Cabinets and sewing-machine. Want 
 of novelty, particular patent. 5 Off. Gaz. 117. 
 
 Rouse v. Fletcher. Well-drills. Decree. 9 Off. Gaz. 838. 
 
 RowE V. Blanchard. Harrows. Note, useless patent. What 
 "utility "is. 18 Wise. 441. 
 
 Rowley v. Mason. Abandonment, neglect for nine years. 2 
 Am. L. T. (U. S.) R. 106. 
 
 Rubber Co. (See New York Rubber Co. ; Providence 
 Rubber Co.) 
 
 Rubber Coated Harness Trimming Co. v. Welling. Mar- 
 tingale rings. Want of novelty. Construction of patents, 
 state of art. Technical terms. 7 Otto, 7 ; 13 Off. Gaz. 727. 
 
 Rubber Comb Co. (See India-rubber Comb Co.) 
 
 Rubber Step Co. v. Metropolitan Railroad. Carriage- 
 steps. Particular patent, validity. 13 Off. Gaz. 549. 
 
 Rubber Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard. Pencil-heads. Con- 
 struction of patents, want of novelty. 9 Blatch. 490; 5 
 Fisher, 377 ; 1 Off. Gaz. 407. 
 
 Rubber Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard. Pencil-heads. Idea is 
 not patentable. 20 Wall. 498; 7 Off. Gaz. 172. 
 
 Ruffle Co. (See Magic Ruffle Co.) 
 
 RuGGLES V. Eddy. Coal-stoves. Effect of assignment, parol 
 evidence to vary it not admissible. Equitable title gives 
 right to sue. 10 Blatch. 52; 5 Fisher, 581. 
 
 RuGGLES V. Eddy. Coal-stoves. Master's report, damages, 
 too narrow construction of claims. Infringement of com- 
 bination and its parts. 12 Off. Gaz. 716. 
 
 RuGGLES V. Eddy. Coal-stoves. Cannot amend answ^er after 
 decree by striking out admission of infringement. 11 
 Blatch. 524. 
 
 Rule Co. (See Stanley Rule and Level Co.)
 
 104 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 RuMFORD Chemical Works v. Hecker. Acid for soda-pow- 
 ders. Want of novelty, particular patent. 10 Blatch. 136 ; 
 5 Fisher, 628; 3 Off. Gaz. 319. 
 
 RuMFORD Chemical Works v. Hecker. Acid for soda-pow- 
 ders. Accounting. Court has no power to regulate plain- 
 tiff's proceedings in other courts. 11 Blatch. 552; 5 Off. 
 Gaz. 644. 
 
 RuMFOED Chemical Works v. Hecker. Acid for soda-pow- 
 ders. Decrees, res aJJudicatce, interlocutory, rule of comity. 
 10 Off. Gaz. 289. 
 
 RuMFORD Chemical Works v. Hecker. Acid for soda-pow- 
 ders. Reference to Master is not res adjudicatce. Rule of 
 damages. Practice of staying injunction till Master re- 
 ports condemned. 11 Off. Gaz. 330. 
 
 Rumford Chemical Works v. Laner. Acid for soda-pow- 
 ders. Want of novelty, particular patent. 10 Blatch. 122; 
 5 Fisher, 615; 3 Off. Gaz. 319. 
 
 Rumford Chemical Works v. Vice. Self-raising flour. Pre- 
 liminary injunctions, no laches of plaintiff, no injury to 
 particular defendant, granted. 14 Blatch. 179; 11 Off. 
 
 Russell v. Dodge. Preparing leather. Reissue not for same 
 invention. Reissues generally. Want of novelty. 3 Otto, 
 460; 11 Off. Gaz. 151. 
 
 Russell v. Lathrop. Cutlery. Contract, admissibility of 
 evidence. 117 Mass. 424. 
 
 Russell v. Lathrop. Cutlery. Order ^^ pro confesso " is not 
 a decree establishing validity of patent in sense of the agree- 
 ment. 122 Mass. 300. 
 
 Russell v. Place. Preparing leather. Excessive damages. 
 9 Blatch. 173; 5 Fisher, 134. 
 
 Russell v. Place. Preparing leather. Judgment as estop- 
 pel, certainty of record required. 4 Otto, 606; 12 Off. Gaz. 
 53.
 
 LIST OP CASES. 105 
 
 Russell and Erwin Manufacturing Co. v. Malloky. 
 Reversible locks. Defense must be set up in answer, pro- 
 priety of the rule. Original inventor. Abandonment, 
 mere lapse of time not conclusive. 10 Blatch. 140; 5 
 Fisher, 632; 2 Off. Gaz. 495. 
 
 Russell and Erwin Manufacturing Co. v. Manufactur- 
 ing Co. Reversible locks. Infringement, immaterial 
 variations, same result by same means. 12 Blatch. 36; 7 
 Off. Gaz. 383. 
 
 Ryan v. Goodwin (probably By am). Matches. Novelty of 
 combinations. What public use and sale is. Uncertainty 
 in specification. 3 Sumn. 514; 1 Robb, 725. 
 
 s. 
 
 S. AND B. Manufacturing Co. v. Coke Co. (See Still- 
 well, &c. Co.) 
 
 Saddle Co. (See American Saddle Co.) 
 
 Safety Truck Co. (See Locomotive Engine Safety 
 Truck Co.) 
 
 Salamander Co. (See United States and Foreign Sal- 
 amander Felting Co.) 
 
 Salt Co. (See Pennsylvania Salt Co.) 
 
 Sanders v. Logan. Thi-eshing-machine. Injunctions, irrepa- 
 rable injury, prior suit at law not necessary. Abandonment. 
 Prior use. 2 Fisher, 167. 
 
 Sands v. Wardwell. Knitting-needle machine. Original 
 inventor, patent prima facie evidence. Infringement, com- 
 bination, must be all the parts. 3 Cliff. 277. 
 
 Sanford v. Merrimack Hat Co. Hat-machine. Patentability, 
 generally. What constitutes invention. 10 Off. Gaz. 466. 
 
 Sanford v. Messer. Sewing-machine. Want of parties. 
 Difference between assignment and license. Original in- 
 ventor. 1 Holmes, 149; 5 Fisher, 411; 2 Off. Gaz. 470. 
 
 Sangster v. Miller. Lanterns. Want of novelty. 5 Blatch. 
 243; 2 Fisher, 563.
 
 106 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Sargent v. Carter. Apple-parer. Preliminary injunctions. 
 Original inventor, consumer's acquiescence. ],_ Fisher, 277. 
 
 Sargent v. Larned. Apple-parer. Covenant not to in- 
 fringe, estoppel to dispute validity. Infringement, change 
 of form. 2 Curtis, 340. 
 
 Sargent v. Seagrave. Apple-parer, Preliminary injunc- 
 tions, acquiescence under a caveat. Length of exclusive 
 possession required. 2 Curtis, 553. 
 
 Sargent Manufacturing Co. v. Woodruff. Buckles. 
 Preliminaiy injunctions, prior decisions, ruling not enough. 
 Presumption from defendants' having a patent is' against 
 infringement. 5 Bissell, 444. 
 
 Sarven v. Hall. Carriage-wheels. Reissue not for same in- 
 vention, outside evidence. Object of reissues. Patentable 
 kinds of combinations. AYant of novelty, patent prima 
 facie evidence, aggregation of parts. 9 Blatch. 524 ; 5 
 Fisher, 415; 1 Oif. Gaz. 437. 
 
 Sarven v. Hall. Carriage-wheels. Construction of patents, 
 whole taken together. Infringement, combination, equiva- 
 lents. 11 Blatch. 295; 6 Fisher, 495; 4 OfE. Gaz. 666. 
 
 Sawin v. Guild. Nail-machine. Sale of materials by sheriff 
 is not infringement. 1 Gall. 485; 1 Robb, 47. 
 
 Sawyer v. Bixby. Putting up powders. Want of novelty, 
 particular patent. 9 Blatch. 361; 5 Fisher, 283; 1 Off. 
 Gaz. 165. 
 
 Saxe v. Hammond. Tremolo attachment. Infringement, 
 combination, making one part. Where no infringement is 
 found court will not pass on novelty. 1 Holmes, 456; 7 
 Off. Gaz. 781. 
 
 Saxton v. Aultman. Recording assignments, precedence. 15 
 Ohio St. 471. 
 
 Saxton v. Dodge. Reaper. Note, consideration. Indorse- 
 ment by payee. Estoppel on nudum pactum. 57 Barb. (N. 
 y.) 84. 
 
 Sayles v. Chicago and Northwestern Railroad. Car- 
 brakes. Want of novelty, anticipating machine must be 
 practical. 1 Bissell, 468; 2 Fisher, 523.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 107 
 
 Sayi-es v. Chicago and Noktiiwestern Railroad. Car- 
 brakes. Positive and negative evidence. Aj^proximations 
 to inventions, great utility and non-use inconsistent. 3 
 Bissell, 52; 4 Fisher, 586. 
 
 Sayles r. Hapgood. Cultivators. Original inventor, date 
 of conception, date of first description. Evidence. 2 
 Bissell, 189; 3 Fisher, 632. 
 
 ScAiFE V. Fulton's Sons & Co. Steam-puinp. Want of nov- 
 elty. 9 Oif. Gaz. 1164. 
 
 ScAiFE V. Sheriffs. Steam-pump. Want of novelty. 9 Off. 
 Gaz. 1164. 
 
 Schillinger v. Gunthek. Concrete pavement. Contempt, 
 violation of injunction. Studied attempt to use plaintiff's 
 invention. Liberal construction of patents. Fines for con- 
 tempt. 14 Blatch. 152; 11 Off. Gaz. 831. 
 
 Schillinger v. Gunther. Concrete pavement. Reissues and 
 disclaimers. Master's report, profits and damages. 14 
 Off. Gaz. 713. 
 
 ScHUESSLER V. Davis. Buckle-fasteniugs. Object of reissues. 
 Want of novelty. 13 Off. Gaz. 1011. 
 
 Schumacher v. Cornell. Wrenches. Infringement, com- 
 bination is an entirety. 6 Otto, 549. 
 
 Schwarzel v. Holexsh.^de. Grain-separators. Reasons for 
 trebling damages. 2 Bond, 29; 3 Fisher, 116. 
 
 Scott v. Sweet. Fanning-mills. Note, worthless patent, no 
 consideration. 2 G. Greene (Iowa), 224. 
 
 Searls v. Van Nest. Whip-sockets. Original inventor. Re- 
 issue not for same invention. Infringement, same result in 
 same way. 13 Off. Gaz. 772. 
 
 Seligman v. Day. Corset-clasp. Preliminary injunctions. 
 Want of novelty. 14 Blatch. 72. 
 
 Serrell i\ Collins. Moldings. Preliminary injunction. 
 Plaintiff failed twice to establish validity at law. 4 Blatch. 
 61.
 
 108 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Serrell v. Collins. Moldings. Charge to jury. Patent 
 prima facie valid. Construction for the court. Original 
 inventor. Want of novelty. Utility. Damages. 1 Fisher, 
 289. 
 
 Serviss v. Stockstill. Fruit-cans. Contract, evidence, rep- 
 resentations, performance. Too general exceptions to charge. 
 30 Ohio St. 418. 
 
 Sewall v. Jones. Preserving corn. Original inventor must 
 be so for whole world. Want of novelty, particular patent. 
 1 Otto, 171. 9 Off. Gaz. 47. 
 
 Sewing Machine Co. (See Domestic Sewing Machine Co. ; 
 Florence Sewing Machine Co. ; Grover and Baker 
 Sewing Machine Co.) 
 
 Seymour v. Marsh. Harvesters. Scope of reissues. Patents 
 for impractical inventions. Judgment of United States 
 Supreme Court on facts. Expert testimony. Infringement, 
 same actuating forces. Patent expired, account without 
 injunction. 6 Fisher, 115; 9 Phila. 380; 2 Off. Gaz. 675. 
 
 Seymour v. McCormick. Reaper. Actual damages, license 
 fees. 16 How. 480. 
 
 Seymour v. McCormick. Reaper. Disclaimer, unreasonable 
 delay. 19 How. 96. 
 
 Seymour v. Osborne. Harvester. Construction of patents. 
 Action of Commissioner on reissue not conclusive. Object 
 of reissues, too broad claims. " Substantially as described." 
 Infringement. 3 Fisher, 555. 
 
 Seymour v. Osborne. Harvester. Importance of patent suits. 
 Patents are not monopolies. Original inventor, patent 
 prima facie evidence. Fraud not open collaterally. Cer- 
 tainty in specification. Oath of inventors. Power to re- 
 issue. Reissue not for same invention. Patentability, utility. 
 Printed publications. Multifariousness. Infringement, 
 comparison of machines. 11 Wall. 516. '/- /T^-t-f . ^^ I 
 
 Shaw v. Cooper. Fire-arms. Right to reissue. Reissue re- 
 lates to original. English law. Prior knowledge and use. 
 Abandonment. 7 Peters, 29 ; 1 Robb, 643. 
 
 Shaw and Wilcox Co. v. Lovejoy. Recovering gold and 
 silver. Result not patentable. 7 Blatch. 232.
 
 LIST OP CASES. 109 
 
 Shelly v. Braxnan. Lime-kilns. Preliminary injunctions, 
 prior suit at law not necessary. 2 Bissell, 315; 4 Fisher, 
 198. 
 
 Sherman v. Champlain Transportation Co. Cut-ofE valve. 
 State court has jurisdiction where validity is not necessarily 
 involved. Proof of execution of instrument, attestation. 
 Sale of personal property, implied warranties. New trial, 
 jury misunderstanding the court. Repudiating tenancy. 
 Contracts not within a year. 31 Vt. 162. 
 
 Shoe Tip, &c. Co. (See American Shoe Tip Co.) 
 
 Shoup v. Henrici. Oil-well pump. Original inventor. Prior 
 use. 9 Off. Gaz. 1162. 
 
 Sickels v. Borden. Cut-off valves. Idea not patentable. In- 
 fringement, tests, same result in same way. Damages, 
 license fee, profits, small fees in order to introduce it. 
 License fee being measure of damages awarded by jury, 
 defendant can use for life of patent. 3 Blatch. 535. 
 
 Sickels v. Borden. Cut-off valves. Contempt, violation of 
 injunction, what constitutes. 4 Blatch. 14. 
 
 Sickels v. Evans. Cut-off valves. Reissue not for same in- 
 vention. 2 Cliff. 203; 2 Fisher, 417. 
 
 Sickels v. Falls Co. Cut-off valves. Reissue after fourteen 
 years cannot claim any thing not specified in original, though 
 earlier. 4 Blatch. 508; 2 Fishei-, 202. 
 
 Sickels v. Gloucester Manufacturing Co. Steam-engines. 
 Jurisdiction, discovery and account without injunction. 
 Patents are liberally construed. Original inventor. In- 
 fringement, comparative excellence irrelevant. 1 Fisher, 
 222. 
 
 Sickels v. Mitchell. Cut-off valves. Preliminary injunc- 
 tions, prior suit at law not necessary. Discontinuance 
 of infringement no answer to injunction. General denial 
 of validity is not enough. 3 Blatch. 548. 
 
 Sickels r. Tileston. Cut-off valves. Preliminary injunctions, 
 prior decision against same machine. 4 Blatch. 109.
 
 110 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 SiCKELS V. Youngs. Cut-off valves. Preliminary injunctions, 
 how far into evidence court will go. Substantial identity. 
 Irreparable injury. 3 Blatch. 293. 
 
 SiEBERT t'. Garratt. Lubi'icators. Decree. 8 Off. Gaz. 600. 
 
 SiLSBY V. FooTE. stoves. Effect of juryman becoming ill. 
 Admissibility of disclaimer in evidence. Nonsuits only 
 by consent of plaintiff. Sufficiency of notice of special 
 matter. 14 How. 218. 
 
 SiLSBY V. FooTE. Stoves. Profits and damages. Disclaimers 
 must be without delay. 20 Plow. 378. 
 
 Simpson v. Mad River Railroad. Removing truck-wheels. 
 Utility. Damages. 6 McLean, 603. 
 
 Simpson v. Wilson. Planing-machine. Rights of territorial 
 assignee. 4 How. 709; 2 Robb, 469. 
 
 Singer v. Braunsdorf. Sewing-machine. Public use for two 
 years. Date of application. Abandonment. Original in- 
 ventor. 7 Blatch. 521. 
 
 Singer v. Walmesley. Sewing-machine. Charge to jury. 
 Patents are not monopolies. Rights of patentee, equiva- 
 lents. Construction of patents. Infringement of combina- 
 tions. Prior use. Duty of jury. Result and process. 1 
 Fisher, 558. 
 
 Singer Co. ii. Union Co. Button-hole machine. Contract, 
 injunction may be granted to stop violation, though it could 
 not be specifically performed. Nature of remedy by injunc- 
 tion. 1 Holmes, 253; 6 Fisher, 480; 4 Off. Gaz. 553. 
 
 SissoN V. Gilbert. Staves from bolts. Prior use for more 
 
 than two years. 9 Blatch. 185; 5 Fisher, 109. 
 SizER V. Many. Writ of error after mandate brings up only 
 what was done after mandate, here only taxation of costs, 
 so no jurisdiction. 16 How. 98 
 Skirt Co. (See Woven Tape Skirt Co.) 
 Slate Roof Co. (See Plastic Slate Roofing Co.) 
 Slemmer's Appeal. Oil-refining. State courts no jurisdic- 
 tion over validity of patents. Joint patent for sole inven- 
 tion is void. Effect of suggestions. Invention by employ^. 
 58 Penn. St. 155.
 
 LIST OF CASES. Ill 
 
 Sloat v. Patton. Planing-machine. Difference in result is 
 evidence of difference in mode of operation. Patentee's 
 right to his invention. 1 Fisher, 154. 
 
 Smith v. Allen. Fire-arms. Interfering patents, reissued to 
 cover each other. 2 Fisher, 572. 
 
 Smith v. Baker's Administrators. Reviving suit against 
 defendant's representatives. Account without injunction. 
 
 5 Off. Gaz. 496. 
 
 Smith v. Clark. Telegraph. Particular patent. 3 Am. L. J. 
 (or 10 Penn. L.J.) 155. 
 
 Smith v. Cummings. Telegraph. Preliminary injunctions to 
 compel performance of agreements. Effect of substantia] 
 controversy on issuing injunctions. 1 Fisher, 152. 
 
 Smith v. Downing. Telegraph. What patents can cover. 
 What "art" means in patent law. Infringement, equiv- 
 alents. 1 Fisher, 6i. 
 
 Smith v. Elliott. Elastic fabrics. Patents are liberally con- 
 strued. Want of novelty, old thing to new use. 9 Blatch. 
 400; 5 Fisher, 315; 1 Off. Gaz. 331. 
 
 Smith r. Ely. Telegraph. Expiration of foreign patents. 
 Patents must be granted according to law. Pleas in bar. 
 Oyer of patents. Principle cannot be patented. 5 Mc- 
 Lean, 76,1 
 
 Smith v. Ely. Telegraph. Same questions being settled in 
 another case, this was sent back with leave to amend. 15 
 How. 137. 
 
 Smith v. Fay & Co. Mortising-machine. Particular patent. 
 
 6 Fisher, 446. 
 
 Smith v. Frayer. Stone-crusher. Patentability. Notice of 
 prior knowledge, particularity required. 5 Fisher, 543; 
 2 Off. Gaz. 175. 
 
 Smith v. Glexdale Elastic Fabrics Co. Elastic fabrics. 
 Use by defendant as evidence of utility. 1 Holmes, 340; 
 5 Off. Gaz. 429. 
 
 1 Opinion not delivered.
 
 112 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. Artificial 
 gums, &c. Patentability of combinations. Want of nov- 
 elty. Reissue not for same invention. 3 Otto, 486; 11 
 Off. Gaz. 246. 
 
 Smith v. Higgins. Pai-ti-coloring yarn. Charge to jury. 
 Construction of patents. Want of novelty. Infringement, 
 damages. 1 Fisher, 537. 
 
 Smith v. Higgins. Parti-coloring yarn. Infringement, com- 
 bination. 2 Fisher, 97. 
 
 Smith v. Marshall. Blackwashing-molds. Infringement, 
 mechanical equivalents. 10 Off. Gaz. 375. 
 
 Smith v. McClelland. Dental plates. State courts have no 
 jurisdiction over infringements. 11 Bush (Ky.), 523. 
 
 Smith v. Mercer. Planing-machine. Reissue to adminis- 
 trator. Patents signed by acting commissioner. Reissue 
 not for same invention. Infringement, substantial identity. 
 5 Penn. L. J. 529 ; 4 West. L. J. 49. 
 
 Smith v. Nichols. Weaving fabric. Want of novelty, 
 greater utility. 1 Holmes, 172; 6 Fisher, 61; 2 Off. Gaz. 
 649. 
 
 Smith v. Nichols. Weaving fabric. Disclaimers, unreason- 
 able delay. Want of novelty, prior use. Utility. 21 
 Wall. 112. 
 
 Smith v. O'Connor. Water-closet pan. Patents are liberally 
 construed. Defective specifications. Want of novelty, 
 two years' sale. Reissue not for same invention. Dam- 
 ages. 2 Sawyer, 461; 6 Fisher, 469; 4 Off. Gaz. 633. 
 
 Smith v. Patton. Planing-machine. Injunction, equitable 
 release by plaintiff. Attachment refused. . 6 Penn. L. J. 
 189. 
 
 Smith v. Pearce. Grinding millstones. Patentability, mere 
 alteration. Infringement, substantially alike. 2 McLean, 
 176; 2 Robb, 13. 
 
 Smith v. Prior. Water-closet pan. Patents are liberally 
 construed. Defective specifications. Want of novelty, 
 two years' sale. Reissue not for same invention. Dam- 
 ages. 2 Sawyer, 461 ; 6 Fisher, 469.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 113 
 
 Smith v. Rifle Co. Fire-arms. Preliminary injunctions. 
 Defendant manufacturing for English government. In- 
 fringement admitted and offered to pay reasonable sum. 
 Injunction refused. 3 Blatch. 545. 
 
 Smith v. Seldex. Telegraph. Contract. 1 Blatch. 475. 
 
 Smith t>. Tracy. Medicine. One practising physic without 
 authority of law cannot recover for services or even for 
 patent medicines given. 2 Hall (N. Y.), 465. 
 
 Smith v. Woodruff. Paper-holder. Patent prima facie 
 valid. If no infringement between two patents, there is no 
 interference. 1 Mc Arthur, 459; 6 Fisher, 476; 4 Off. Gaz. 
 635. 
 
 Snow v. Judsox. Valves for governors. Contract, false rep- 
 resentations, State court has jui-isdiction. 38 Barb. (N.Y.) 
 210. 
 
 Snow v. Tapley. Paper collars. Abandoned experiments, 
 prior use. 13 Off. Gaz. 548. 
 
 Snow v. Taylor. Paper collars. Patentability. 14 Off. 
 Gaz. 861. 
 
 SoNE V. Palmer. Seed-planter. Note, consideration. Non- 
 suits must be voluntary. Assignments, recording. Patent- 
 office clerk as witness. 28 Mo. 539. 
 
 Spauldixg y. Duff. Saws. Damages, full amount of profits, 
 no fixed royalties. 1 Sawyer, 702; 4 Fisher, 641. 
 
 Spauldixg v. Page. SawS. Damages, full amount of profits, 
 no fixed royalty. 1 Sawyer, 702; 4 Fisher, G41. 
 
 Spauldixg v. Tucker. Saws. Retaxing costs, printing 
 testimony not included, travelling fees for witnesses out yf 
 the State. Deady, 619; 4 Fi.sher, 633. 
 
 Sprague v. Adriaxce. Mowing-machine. Abandonment a 
 fact, not conclusion of law, intention. Reissue not for 
 same invention. Want of novelty. 14 Off. Gaz. 308. 
 
 Spring v. Howard. Lathe, irregular forms. Want of 
 novelty, particular patent. 7.0fE. Gaz. 341. 
 
 Spring v. Packard. Lathe, irregular forms. Want of 
 novelty, particular patent. 7 Off. Gaz. 341. 
 8
 
 114 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Squire, John L., In re. Interfering patents, original not 
 appellate jurisdiction of circuit courts. Appointment of 
 special examiners. 12 Off. Gaz. 1025. 
 
 Stainthorp v. Elkinton. Candle-machine. Original in- 
 ventor, abandoned experiments. 1 Fisher, 349. 
 
 Stainthorp v. Humiston. Candle-machine. Subsequent 
 patent. Want of novelty. 1 Fisher, 475. 
 
 Stainthorp v. Humiston. Candle-making. Injunction re- 
 fused, valuable improvements by defendant. 2 Fisher, 311. 
 
 Stainthorp v. Humiston. Candle-making. Citizenship, 
 evidence, terms. Want of novelty, utility. 4 Fisher, 107. 
 
 Stanley v. Whipple. Stove. Patentability, utility. Too 
 broad claims. Books of parties as evidence. Reissue re- 
 lates back to original. Verdict not set aside if evidence 
 conflicts. 2 McLean, 35; 2 Robb, 1. 
 
 Stanley Rule and Level Co. v. Bailey. Bench-planes. 
 Estoppel to dispute novelty. Agreement broken by plain- 
 tiff, effect on his rights. Infringement, equivalents. 14 
 Blatch. 510. 
 
 Stanley Works v. Sargent & Co. Door-bolts. Utility as 
 a test of originality. 8 Blatch. 344; 4 Fisher, 443. 
 
 State v. Brower. Ohio law on notes for patent-rights. In- 
 dictment must show that note was negotiable. 30 Ohio St. 
 101. 
 
 State v. Peck. Cultivator. Ohio law of negotiable notes 
 for patent-rights, effect and extent. 25 Ohio St. 26. 
 
 Steam Cutter Co. v. Shelden. Stone-channelling. Con- 
 tract. Right to make and right to use distinguished. 
 Abandoning contract, defendant may be sued as infringer. 
 10 Blatch. 1 ; 5 Fisher, 477. 
 
 Steam Packet Co. (See Packet Co.) 
 
 Stearns v. Barrett. Dyeing-machine. Appellate jurisdic- 
 tion of Circuit Court. Scire facias. Irregular verdicts. 
 1 Mason, 153; 1 Robb, 07. 
 
 Stein v. Goddard. Infringement is a tort. Assignees join- 
 ing as plaintiffs. 1 McAllister, 82.
 
 LIST OP CASES. 115 
 
 Stephens v. Felt. Writing-fluid. What actual damages 
 are. 2 Blatch. 37. 
 
 Stevens v. Head. Cider-mill. Note, lack of title, admis- 
 sibility of evidence. 9 Vt. 174. 
 
 Stevens v. Pierpont. Hay-cutters. Violation of contract. 
 Conclusions of fact not open on writ of error. Identity of 
 two machines. 42 Conu. 360. 
 
 Stevens v. Pkitchard. Boots and shoes. Combinations. 
 Reissues are presumed valid. Right to reissue, introduc- 
 tion of new features. 10 Off. Gaz. 505. 
 
 Stillwell and Bierce Manufacturing Co. v. Cincinnati 
 Gaslight and Coke Co. Filters. Want of novelty, 
 anticipation, greater utility. Model not enough to antici- 
 pate. 7 Off. Gaz. 829. 
 
 Stimpson v. Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad. 
 Turning short curves. Infringement, combination, must 
 be all the elements. Writ of error lies against decision 
 on agreed state of facts. 10 How. 329. 
 
 Stimpson v. Pond. Penalfcy for use of word " patent " on 
 unpatented articles. Limitation for bringing suits. 2 
 Curtis, 502. 
 
 Stimpson v. Rogers. Ice-pitchers. Patent may issue to ex- 
 ecutor on death of inventor. Misjoinder of defendants. 
 4 Blatch. 333. 
 
 Stimpson v. The Railroads. Turning short curves. Act- 
 ual damages, counsel fees, allowance by jury. 1 Wall. Jr. 
 164; 2Robb, 593. 
 
 Stimpson v. West Chester Railroad. Turning short 
 curves. Practice, excepting generally to charge of court. 
 Defects remedied by reissue. 4 How. 380; 2 Robb, 335. 
 
 Stimpson v. Woodman. Ornamenting leather. Infringe- 
 ment, combination, smooth roller replaced by one covered 
 with designs. 10 Wall. 117. 
 
 Stone v. Edwards. State courts have no jurisdiction in 
 infringement suits. 35 Texas, 556.
 
 116 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Stone v. Sprague. Looms. Construction of patents. 1 
 Story, 270; 2 Robb, 10. 
 
 Storks v. Howe. Tailor's pressing-machine. Original in- 
 ventor, patent prima facie evidence. Infringement, equiv- 
 alents, combinations. 10 Oif. Gaz. 421. 
 
 Stove Works. (See Detroit Stove Works.) 
 
 Stover v. Halsted. Planing-machine. Utility. Infringe- 
 ment, want of novelty. 13 Blatch. 95; 8 Off. Gaz. 558. 
 
 Street v. Silver. Writing-slate. Note, guaranty, void if 
 not original inventor, colorable alterations. Brightly 
 (Penn.), 96. 
 
 Strong v. Noble. Whips. Want of novelty, old thing to 
 new use. 6 Blatch. 477; 3 Fisher, 586. 
 
 Stuart v. Shantz. Stoves. Infringement, license. Utility 
 shown by popularity. 6 Fisher, 35; 9 Phila. 376; 2 Off. 
 Gaz. 524. 
 
 Sturges v. Van Hagen. Punching metal. Decree. 4 Off. 
 Gaz. 579; 6 Fisher, 572. 
 
 Suffolk Manufacturing Co. v. Hayden. Cotton-cleaners. 
 Dedication, not claiming in later and different application. 
 Rule of damages. 3 Wall. 315. 
 
 Sugar Refinery. (See Union Sugar Refinery.) 
 SuLLiNGS V. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. Artificial 
 gums, &c. Contract, breach by suing out injunction. Pen- 
 dency of other suit. 36 Mich. 313. 
 
 Sullivan i;. Redfield. Towing-boats. Fact of original in- 
 ventor must be sworn to in bill. Equity jurisdiction in 
 patents. Certainty in specification, acquiescence and enjoy- 
 ment. 1 Paine, 441; 1 Robb, 477. 
 
 SuYDAM V. Day. India-rubber. Assignments and rights of 
 assignee. 2 Blatch. 20. 
 
 Swain Turbine Co. v. Ladd. Water-wheel. Function is not 
 patentable. 11 Off. Gaz. 153. 
 
 SwEETZER V. Helms. Burnisher. Infringement. 10 Off. 
 Gaz. 4.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 117 
 
 Swift v. Whisex. Flour-separater. Charge to jury. Want 
 of novelty. Reissues may be to assignee of assignee. Join- 
 ing patentee not necessary. Reissue not for same invention. 
 Fraud. Uncertainty in specification. Infringement, com- 
 parison of the two machines. 2 Bond, 115;. 3 Fisher, 343. 
 
 Sykes v. Manhattan Elevator and Grain Drying Co. 
 Grain-dryer. Preliminary injunctions, unsatisfactory evi- 
 dence. 6 Blatch. 496. 
 
 T. 
 
 Tape Skirt Co. (See Woven Tape Skirt Co.) 
 
 Tappan v. National Bank Note Co. Perforating-machine. 
 Question of abandonment and public use reserved for final 
 hearing. Acquiescence. 4 Blatch. 509; 2 Fisher, 195. 
 
 Tarr v. Folsom. Marine paint. Reissue not for same inven- 
 tion. Want of novelty. 1 Holmes, 313; 5 Off. Gaz. 92. 
 
 Tarr v. Webb. Marine paint. Want of novelty. Reissue not 
 for same invention. 10 Blatch. 96; 5 Fisher, 593; 2 Off. 
 Gaz. 568. 
 
 Tatham v. Leroy. Lead-pipe machine. Identity, rule of 
 law. Infringement, change of form, mechanical equivalents. 
 Rule of damages. 2 Blatch. 474. 
 
 Tatham v. Loring. Tube-making. Rights of assignees are 
 only such as inventors have. 5 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 207. 
 
 Tatham v. Lowber. Lead-pipe machine. Assignments from 
 alien patentees. 2 Blatch. 49. 
 
 Taylor v. Archer. Glue for flexible tubing. Want of nov- 
 elty, foreign patents. Disclaimer during suit. Infringe- 
 ment, equivalents. 8 Blatch. 315; 4 Fisher, 449. 
 
 Taylor v. Collins. Looms. Interpretation of agreement. 
 102 Mass. 248. 
 
 Taylor v. Garretson. Mop-head. Reissue not for same in- 
 vention. Want of novelty. Con.struction of patents. In- 
 fringement, mechanical equivalents, change of form. 9 
 Blatch. 156; 5 Fisher, 116.
 
 118 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Tatlor v. Wood. Exercise apparatus. Infringement, par- 
 ticular patent. 12 Blatch. 110; 8 Off. Gaz. 90. 
 
 Teese v. Huntingdon. Sluice-fork. General issue, special 
 notice, thirty days. Damages, counsel fees. Credibility of 
 witnesses, how settled. 23 How. 2. 
 
 Teese v. Phelps. General demurrer, allegation of residence 
 of parties. Rules of court. Patentability is mixed ques- 
 tion of law and fact. 1 McAllister, 17. 
 
 Teese v. Phelps. Construction of patents. Patent prima 
 facie evidence of novelty. Infringement, change of form, 
 inventive skill. 1 McAllister, 48. 
 
 Thatcher Heating Co. i>. Carbon Stove Co. Air-heating 
 furnaces. General allegation of infringement is enough. 
 Patentability, novelty. 15 Off. Gaz. 1051. 
 
 Thayer v. Wales. Candle-making. Infringement, want of 
 novelty. 9 Blatch. 170; 5 Fisher, 130. 
 
 Thayer v. Wales. Candle-making. Appearance and plea by 
 attorney admits jurisdiction. 5 Fisher, 448. 
 
 Thomas w. Quintard. Sperm-oil. Sale of patent. Purchaser 
 having re-sold is estopped to dispute validity. 5 Duer (N. 
 Y.), 80. 
 
 Thomas v. Weeks. Bilge-levers. Preliminary injunctions, 
 exclusive possession. Original inventor, suggestions. 2 
 Paine, 92. 
 
 Thompson v. Haight. Making carpets. What invention is. 
 Novelty, utility. History of patent laws. 1 U. S. L. J. 
 563. 
 
 Thompson v. Jacobs. Corsets. Patentability. Decree. 12 
 Off. Gaz. 890. 
 
 Thompson v. Mendelsohn. Caustic alkalies. Patent suit 
 may be brought wherever defendant is found. 5 Fisher, 
 187. 
 
 Thompson v. Staats. Medicine. Owning a patent medicine 
 is no excuse for practising medicine without authority. 15 
 Wend. (N. Y.) 395.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 119 
 
 Thompson and The Pennsylvania Salt Co. v. Barry. 
 
 Assignment after preliminary injunction no ground for dis- 
 solving it. 2 Weekly Notes, 100. 
 
 TiLGHMAN V. Kartell. Sand-blast. Jurisdiction, pleading. 
 License. 9 Off. Gaz. 886. 
 
 Tilghman v. jMitchell. Purifying fats. Infi'ingement, pro- 
 cess. 2 Fisher, 518. 
 
 Tilghman v. Mitchell. Purifying fats. Master's report, 
 specification is addressed to those skilled m the art. Gains 
 and profits. 9 Blatch. 1 ; 4 Fisher, 599. 
 
 Tilghman v. Mitchell. Purifying fats. Preliminary injunc- 
 tions. Want of novelty. Expiration of foreign patents 
 before extension. Infringement. 9 Blatch. 18; 4 Fisher, 
 615. 
 
 Tilghman v. Morse. Stone-cutting. Preliminary injunction, 
 want of novelty. Process or art. 9 Blatch. 421 ; 5 Fisher, 
 323; 1 Off. Gaz. 574. 
 
 Tilghman v. Werk. Purifying fats. Original inventor, 
 utility. Clearness in specification. Principle not patent- 
 able. Infringement, process, only part. 1 Bond, 511; 2 
 Fisher, 229. 
 
 TiLLOTSON V. MuNSON. . Filter-vrcU. Want of novelty. Orig- 
 inal inventor. Infringement, performing same function. 5 
 Bissell, 426. 
 
 ToMLiNSON V. Battel. Ambrotypes. State courts no jurisdic- 
 tion where validity of patents is involved. 4 Abb. (N. Y.) 
 266. 
 
 Tompkins v. Gage. Knitting-machine. Tautolo^cal claims. 
 Original inventor, burden of proof. Infringement, mechan- 
 ical equivalent. 5 Blatch. 269; 2 Fisher, 577. 
 
 Tool Co. (See Middletown Tool Co.) 
 
 Tracy v. Torrey. Cultivators. Preliminary injunctions. 
 Infringement, same principle carried farther. 2 Blatch. 
 275. 
 
 Trader v. Messmore. Seed-planters. Strict construction of 
 patents. Patentee's construction. 7 Off. Gaz. 385.
 
 120 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Treadwell v. Bladen. Biscuit-finisher. Original inventor, 
 fbrm distinguished from principle. Prior knowledge. 
 Prior patent for same invention. 4 Wash. 703; 1 Robb, 
 531. 
 
 Treadwell v. Parrott. Cannon-making. Practicability, 
 original inventor, state of the art. 5 Blatch. 370; 3 Fisher, 
 124. 
 
 Tremaine v. Hitchcock. Tremolo attachment. Amend- 
 ment of bills. 7 Off. Gaz. 1055. 
 
 Tremolo Patent. Tremolo attachment. Amendments after 
 final decree. Profits, &c. 23 How. 518. 
 
 Troy Iron and Nail Factory v. Corning. Nail machin- 
 ery. Original inventor. Plaintiff bound by agreement. 
 1 Blatch. 467; 6 Fisher, 85. 
 
 Troy Iron and Nail Factory v. Corning. Nail machin- 
 ery. Master's report. Practice, exceptions to ruling must 
 be made at the time. Profits, admission of defendants. 
 6 Blatch. 328; 3 Fisher, 497. 
 
 Troy Iron and Nail Factory v. Corning. Nail machinery. 
 
 Construction of particular agreement. Form of licenses, 
 
 &c. 14 How. 193. 
 Troy Iron and Nail Factory v. Odiorne. Nail machinery. 
 
 Date of particular machine. 17 How. 72. 
 
 Troy Iron and Nail Factory ik Winslow. Nail machinery. 
 Bills of revivor. Profits. Partnership suit does not abate 
 by death of partner. Cannot sue representatives of de- 
 ceased partner unless firm is insolvent. 11 Blatch. 513. 
 
 Truck Co.* (See Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co.) 
 
 Tryon v. White. Comb-machine. Nonsuit for variance. 
 1 Peters, C. C. 96; 1 Robb, 64. 
 
 Tuck v. Bramhill. Packing for boxes. Want of novelty. 
 When disclaimers must be filed. Proper disclaimers. 6 
 Blatch. 95; 3 Fisher, 400. 
 
 Tucker v. Spaulding. Saw-teeth. Identity is for jury. 
 Rejection of evidence. 13 Wall. 453; 5 Fisher, 297 ; 1 0£E. 
 Gaz. 144.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 121 
 
 I'ucKER V. TucKKR Manufactuking Co. Broiizing iron. 
 Power of Coinniissioner. Reissue not for same invention. 
 Reissues in general. Infringement. 10 Oif. Gaz. 464. 
 
 Tufts i;. Boston Manufacturing Co. Hoisting-apparatus. 
 Want of novelty, particular patent. 1 Holmes, 459; 8 
 Off. Gaz. 239. 
 
 Turbine Co. (See Swain Turbine Co.) 
 
 TuRNBULL V. Weir Plow Co. Cultivators. Recording as- 
 signments. Bona fide purchasers. 6 Bissell, 225; 7 Off. 
 Gaz. 173. 
 
 Turner v. Green. Patentee of improvement cannot after- 
 wards pettent the whole machine. 2 Cranch, C. C. 287. 
 
 Turrell 0. Cammerrer. Beer-coolers. General allegation 
 of infringement is enough. 3 Fisher, 462. 
 
 Turrell v. Spaeth. Skates. Compelling production of 
 books. 8 Off. Gaz. 986. 
 
 Turrell v. Spaeth. Skates. Bills to restrain infringement 
 quia timet. 'New bill for infringements since old one. 9 
 Off. Gaz. 1163. 
 
 Turrell v. Spaeth. Skates. Original inventor. Infringe- 
 ment, combination, known equivalents. Reissue not for 
 same invention. 14 Off. Gaz. 377. 
 
 TuRRiLL V. Illinois Central Railroad. Railroad-bars. 
 Prior construction of patents. Want of novelty. Utility. 
 3 BisseU, 66 ; 3 Fisher, 330. 
 
 Turrill v. Illinois Central Railroad. Anvil. Particu- 
 lar patent. 3 Bissell, 72. 
 
 Turrill v. Illinois Central Railroad. Anvil. Con- 
 struction of patents by Supreme Court. Damages. Master 
 simply applies principles laid down by court. Profits. 5 
 Bissell, 344. 
 
 Turrill v. Michigan Southern and Northern Indiana 
 Railroad. Anvil. Patents are not monopolies, but are 
 liberally construed. Decree reversed. 1 Wall. 491. 
 
 Twist Drill Co. (See Morse Twist Drill Co.)
 
 122 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Tyler v. Boston. Oil. Clearness in specification. What 
 " equivalent " means. 7 Wall. 327. 
 
 Tylek v. Devel. What invention is. 1 Am. L. J. (8 Penn. 
 L. J.) 248. 
 
 Tyler v. Hyde. Cotton-presses. Pleas in bar, prior judg- 
 ment must be direct on validity. 2 Blatch. 308. 
 
 Tyler v. Tuel. Grist-mill. Assignee of part only cannot 
 sue. 6 Cranch, 324; 1 Robb, 14. 
 
 u. 
 
 Union Manufacturing Co. v. Lounsbury. Carding-ma- 
 
 chine. Impracticability. 2 Fisher, 389. 
 
 Union Manufacturing Co. v. Lounsbury. Felting ma- 
 chinery. Violation of agreement, royalty. Patent being 
 extended by Congress does not prevent royalty being due. 
 41 N. Y. 363. 
 
 Union Manufacturing Co. v. Lounsbury. Felting ma- 
 chinery. Effect of agreement on extension. 42 Barb. 
 (N. Y.) 125. 
 
 Union Metallic Cartridge Co. v. United States Car- 
 tridge Co. Cartridge-heads. Infringement, equivalents. 
 Purchaser may repair. 11 Off. Gaz. 1113. 
 
 Union Paper Bag Machine Co. v. Binney. Paper bags. 
 Preliminary injunctions, when granted, concealment by de- 
 fendant. Infringement by less perfect machine. 5 Fisher, 
 166. 
 
 Union Paper Bag Machine Co. v. Crane. Paper bags. 
 Decision of Patent Office on interference, not conclusive. 
 Date of invention, estoppel by previous statement. 1 
 Holmes, 429; 6 Off. Gaz. 801. 
 
 Union Paper Bag Machine Co. v. Murphy. Paper bags. 
 Original inventor. Want of novelty. Patents for parts. 
 Infringement, change of form, when essential. 7 Otto, 
 120; 13 Off. Gaz. 366.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 123 
 
 Union Paper Bag Machine Co. v. Newell. Paper bags. 
 Repeal of act of 1836 does not affect patents gi-anted under 
 it. 11 Blatch. 379; 6 Fisher, 582; 5 Off. Gaz. 459. 
 
 Union Paper Bag Machine Co. v. Xewell. Paper bags. 
 Defenses not proved cannot be set up on motion to dissolve 
 injunction. 11 Blatch. 549; 5 Off. Gaz. 173. 
 
 Union Paper Bag Machine Co. v. Nixon. Paper bags. 
 Particular patent. Defective specifications. Opinions of 
 other courts. 6 Fisher, 402; 4 Off. Gaz. 31. 
 
 Union Paper Bag Machine Co. v. Nixon. Paper bags. In- 
 terpretation of license. Patents are liberally construed. 
 9 Off. Gaz. 691. 
 
 Union Paper Bag Machine Co. v. Pultz and Walkley 
 Co. Paper bags. Admissibility of evidence, rejected appli- 
 cations of third party. Abandoned experiments. Original 
 inventor, patent surreptitiously obtained. Infringement, 
 substance of inventions the same. 15 Off. Gaz. 423. 
 
 Union Paper Collar Co. v. Leland. Paper collars. Reissue 
 not for same invention. Want of novelty. 1 Holmes, 427; 
 7 Off. Gaz. 221. 
 
 Union Paper Collar Co. v. Van Deusen. Paper collars. 
 Reissue not for same invention. Want of novelty, 10 
 Blatch. 109; 5 Fisher, 597; 2 Off. Gaz. 361. 
 
 Union Paper Collar Co. v. Van Deusen. Paper coDars. 
 Reissue not for same invention. Parol testimony in re- 
 issuing. Original inventor, patent prima facie evidence 
 only. Clearness in specification. 23 Wall. 530. 
 
 Union Paper Collar Co. v. White. Paper collars. Original 
 inventor. Reissue not for same invention. Purpose of 
 reissues. Infringement, " characteristic resemblance." 7 
 Off. Gaz. 698; s. c. p. 877. 34 Leg. Int. 143. 
 
 Union Sugar Refinery v. Matthieson. Purifying sugar. 
 Practice, Master should hand in a report, not file papers on 
 the docket. Sudden changes of practice not desirable. 
 Filing papers without leave of court. 3 Cliff. 146.
 
 124 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Union Sugar Refinery v. Matthieson. Purifying sugar. 
 Patentable combinations. Patents not monopolies. Orig- 
 inal inventor, patent prima facie evidence. Nature of in- 
 fi-ingement. Notice under general issue. Witnesses are 
 presumed to speak the truth. Want of novelty, foreign 
 patents. 3 Cliff. 639; 2 Fisher, 600. 
 
 United Nickel Co. v. Anthes. Electro-deposition of nickel. 
 Original inventor, abandoned experiments. 1 Holmes, 155; 
 5 Fisher, 517; 1 Off. Gaz. 578. 
 
 United Nickel Co. v. Keith. Electro-deposition of nickel. 
 
 Original inventor, state of the art. 1 Holmes, 328; 5 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 272. 
 United States t7. Burns. Tent. Statutes about contracts of 
 
 government with military officers for supplies do not apply 
 
 to patents. 12 Wall. 246. 
 
 United States ex rel. West v. Doughty. Skirts. Bill to 
 vacate patent must appear to be by District Attorney. 7 
 Blatch. 424. 
 
 United States v. Morris. Penalty for putting VFord " pat- 
 ent " on unpatented articles. 2 Bond, 33; 3 Fisher, 72. 
 
 United States v. Thacher. Boots and shoes. Povrer of 
 Commissioner. Mandamus. Interfering patents. 2 Mc- 
 Arthur, 24; 7 Off. Gaz. 603. 
 
 United States Annunciator Co. v. Sanderson. Bell tele- 
 graph. Opinions of experts. Preliminary injunctions. 
 Bonajide purchasers. 3 Blatch. 184. 
 
 United States and Foreigx Salamander Felting Co. v. 
 Asbestos Felting Co. Cover for steam-boilers. Want of 
 novelty. 10 Off. Gaz. 828. 
 
 United States and Foreign Salamander Felting Co. v. 
 Haven. Cover for steam-boilers. Want of notice. Court 
 cannot notice defenses not set up. Reissue not for same 
 invention. 3 Dillon, 131; 9 Off. Gaz. 253. 
 
 United States and Foreign Salamander Felting Co. v. 
 Lawrence Manufacturing Co. Cover for steam-boil- 
 ers. Want of novelty. Infringement, composition. 9 Off. 
 Gaz. 202.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 125 
 
 United States and Foreign Salamander Felting Co. r. 
 Merrimack Manufacturing Co. Cover for steam-boil- 
 ers. Want of novelty. Infringement, composition. 9 Off. 
 Gaz. 202. 
 
 United States Gauge Co. v. American Gauge Co. Steam- 
 gauge. Prior patents. Infringement, state of art. 1 
 Holmes, 309; 5 OfE. Gaz. 208. 
 
 United States Rifle and Cartridge Co. v. Whitney Arms 
 Co. Fire-arms. Rejecting patents, laches. Abandonment, 
 weight of Commissioner's decision, experimental use. 14 
 Blatch. 94; 11 Off. Gaz. 373. 
 
 V. 
 
 Vale v. Butler. Rotary ovens. Admissibility of evidence. 
 Ill Ma.ss. 55. 
 
 Vance v. Campbell. Cooking-stoves. Charge to jury. Utility, 
 patent prima facie evidence. Infringement. 1 Fisher, 
 483. 
 
 Vance v. Campbell. Cooking-stoves. Combination must be 
 treated as an entirety. Above reversed. 1 Black, 427. 
 
 Van Hook v. Pendleton. Planing-machine. Preliminary 
 injunctions, validity already established, infi'ingement. 
 Feigned issues. 1 Blatch. 187. 
 
 Vannini v. Paine. Lotteries. Jurisdiction of State courts. 
 Patent lottery cannot be used in States where lotteries are 
 illegal. 1 Harr. (Del.) 65. 
 
 Van Ostrand v. Reed. Threshing-machine. Sale of patent, 
 ■worthless machine, false representations. When note is 
 equivalent to payment. 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 424. 
 
 Vaugiian v. Central Pacific Railroad. Cars. Injunction 
 will not issue after patent has expired. Remedies for in- 
 fringement. Remedy at law. Bills of discovery. Profits. 
 Infringement, colorable alterations. 4 Sa'^yer, 280.
 
 126 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Vaughan v. East Tennessee, Virginia, and Georgia 
 Railroad. Patent balance. Damages without injunc- 
 tion. Acts of limitation. Profits, bill of discovery. Con- 
 struction of statute. 11 Off. Gaz. 789. 
 
 Vaughan v. Porter. Balance. Time to request court to 
 charge the jury. Contract. 16 Vt. 266. 
 
 Ventilating Co. (See Lyman Ventilating and Refrig- 
 erator Co.) 
 
 Vetter v. Leutzinger. Window-shades. Patent refused to 
 firm, but granted to one partner, belongs to firm. 31 Iowa, 
 182. 
 
 VoGLER V. Semple. Trunks. Reissue not for same inven- 
 tion. Reissues. Infringement, equivalents. 7 Bissell, 
 382; 11 Off. Gaz. 923. 
 
 VosE V. Singer. Sewing-machine. Joint owners cannot sue 
 each other for profits without special agreement. 4 Allen, 
 (Mass.) 226. 
 
 w. 
 
 Wadding Co. (See Fuzzard Wadding Co.) 
 
 Walker v. Hawxhurst, Penalty for putting word " patent " 
 on unpatented articles. Intent to deceive. 5 Blatch. 494. 
 
 Wallace v. Holmes. Lamps. Sole title. Defenses must 
 be set up to be used. Infringement, combination, making 
 some parts in concert with another making the rest. 9 
 Blatch. 65; 5 Fisher, 37; 1 Off. Gaz. 117. 
 
 Walter A. Wood Mowing and Reaping Machine Co. v. 
 Caldwell. Mowers and reapers. Indiana law of foreign 
 coi-porations. Sale of patented articles. Pleading, abate- 
 ment, denmrrer. 54 Ind. 270. 
 
 Warren v. Cole. Soap-making. Contract, fraud, repudia- 
 tion. Damages in actions of tort. 15 Mich. 265.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 127 
 
 Washburn v. Gould. Plani tig-machine. Extensions to 
 administrators. Who is entitled to patent. Drawings not 
 referred to in specification. New trial, surprise, reason- 
 able diligence. Written instruments, technical words. 3 
 Story, 122; 2 Robb, 206. 
 
 Washing Co. (See Bailet Washing Co.; Metropoli- 
 tan Washing Machine Co.) 
 
 Watkrbury Brass Co. v. Miller. Brass kettles. Patent 
 prima facie evidence of utility, novelty, &c. Machines are 
 generally combinations. Infringement, substantially as 
 described. 9 Blatch. 77; 5 Fisher, 48. 
 
 Waterbury Brass Co. v. New York and Brooklyn 
 Brass Co. Brass kettles. Charge to jury. Infringe- 
 ment, any claim of patent. Patents are liberally construed. 
 Want of novelty, patent prima facie evidence. Proper 
 testimony, experts. 3 Fisher, 43. 
 
 Waterman r. Thompson. Tempering steel. Charge to jury. 
 Original inventor, patent /*)-inja facie evidence, prior inven- 
 tion must be useful. 2 Fisher, 461. 
 
 Waterman v. Wallace. Tempering steel. Interpretation 
 of assignments. 13 Blatch. 129. 
 
 Water-Wheel Co. (See Swain Turbine Co.) 
 
 Watson v. Bladen. Biscuit-finisher. Original inventor. 
 Inventors of improvements. Prior use. 4 Wash. 580; 1 
 Robb, 510. 
 
 W^ATSON I'. Cunningham. Fruit-jars. Patentability of com- 
 binations. 4 Fisher, 528. 
 
 Wayne v. Holmes. Wash-boards. Uncertainty in specifica- 
 tion, object of statute provision. Original inventor. 
 Want of novelty. Utility. 1 Bond, 27 ; 2 Fisher, 20. 
 
 Wayne v. Winter. Washing-machine. Date of application 
 cannot be proved by parol. 6 McLean, 344. 
 
 Webb i'. Quintard. Defensive armor for ships. Want of 
 novelty, printed publications. 9 Blatch. 352; 5 Fisher, 
 276; 1 Off. Gaz. 525.
 
 128 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Webster v. New Brunswick Carpet Co. Looms. Infringe- 
 ment, combination. Expert testimony. Want of novelty. 
 5 Oft-. Gaz. 522. 
 
 Webster v. New Brunswick Carpet Co. Looms. Ex- 
 ceptions to Master's report. 9 Oif. Gaz. 203. 
 
 Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins. Looms. Motion to amend 
 answer. Laches. 13 Blatch. 3i9 ; 9 Off. Gaz. 965. 
 
 Webster Loom Co. v. Short. Looms. Cross-bill without 
 notice must be struck from files. 10 Off. Gaz. 1019. 
 
 Weed v. Draper. Sole-cutter. Contract, damages. 99 Mass. 53. 
 
 Weed v. Draper. Sole-cutter. Contract, damages. 104 
 Mass. 28. 
 
 Welling v. Rubber Coated Harness Trimming Co. 
 Martingale rings. Construction of patents, fair interpre- 
 tation of words. Infringement, well-known substitute. 7 
 Off. Gaz. 606. 
 
 Welling v. Rubber Coated Harness Trimming Co. Mar- 
 tingale rings. Contempt, violation of injunction. 7 Off. 
 Gaz. 608. 
 
 Wells v. Gill. Hat-machine. Preliminary injunction, 
 appeal to discretion, previous decisions, writ of error pend- 
 ing. Decision of Commissioner. Reissue not for same 
 invention. 6 Fisher, 89 ; 2 Off. Gaz. 590. 
 
 Wells v. Gill. Hat-machine. Reissue not for same inven- 
 tion. 6 Fisher, 574; 4 Off. Gaz. 669. 
 
 Wells v. Hagaman. Hat-machine. Infringement, particu- 
 lar patent. 29 Leg. Int. 405. 
 
 Wells v. Jacques. Hat-machine. Preliminary injunctions, 
 questions of fact not easily settled on such motions. 5 
 Fisher, 136. 
 
 Wells v. Jacques. Hat-machine. Patentee's rights. Con- 
 struction of patents. Priority of defendants. Infringe- 
 ment, combination. 5 Off. Gaz. 364. 
 
 Wells ?'. Yates. Hat-machine. Preliminary injunctions, 
 appeal to discretion. Previous decisions. Writ of error 
 pending. Decision of Commissioner. Reissue not for 
 same invention. 2 Off. Gaz. 590.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 129 
 
 Wernek v. Kixg. Fluting-machine. Infringement, mechani- 
 cal equivalents, marked difference. 6 Otto, 218; 13 Off. 
 Gaz. 176. 
 
 West v. Morrison. Nail-machine. Contract, worthless 
 patent no ground for rescission. 2 Bibb (Ky.), 376. 
 
 West v.. Silver Wire and Skirt Manufacturing Co. 
 Ladies' bustles. Infringement, particular patent. 5 
 Blatch. 477; 3 Fisher, 306. 
 
 Western Telegraph Co. v. Magnetic Telegraph Co. 
 Telegraph. If no infi'ingement and no violation of con- 
 tract, no legal remedy. 21 How. 456. 
 
 Western Telegraph Co. v. Penniman. Telegraph. Above 
 affirmed. 21 IIow. 4G0. 
 
 Westinghouse v. Gardner and Ransom Air Brake Co. 
 Air-brakes. Purpose of reissues. " Substantially as de- 
 scribed" is implied. Original inventor, want of novelty. 
 Reissue not for same invention. Ambiguity. Patent- 
 ability. 9 Off. Gaz. 538. 
 
 Westlake v. Cartter. Truss-bridges. Sufficiency of notice 
 of defen.se. Evidence of state of art. Utility. Want of 
 novelty. Infringement, combination. 6 Fisher, 519; 4 
 Off. Gaz. 636. 
 
 Weston v. Nash. Draining sugar. Foreign patents. In- 
 fringement, change of form. 1 Holmes, 488 ; 7 Off. Gaz. 
 1096. 
 
 Weston v. White. Differential pulley-blocks. Expiration of 
 foreign patents. 13 Blatch. 364; 9 Off. Gaz. 1196. 
 
 Weston v. White. Differential pulley-blocks. Preliminary 
 injunctions, prior suit at law not required. Abandonment, 
 public and common use. 13 Blatch. 447. 
 
 Wetherill i^. New Jersey Zinc Co. Zinc-making. Con- 
 tempt, violation of injunction, attempt to invade. 5 Off. 
 Gaz. 460. 
 
 Wetherill v. Passaic Zinc Co. Zinc-making. Interpreta- 
 tion of agreement, right to use, &c. 6 Fisher, 50; 9 Phila. 
 385; 2 Off. Gaz. 471. 
 
 9
 
 130 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Wheeleu v. Billings. Stone-dressing machine. Assign- 
 ment, consideration, parol evidence to vary. Exceptions to 
 court's rulings. 38 N. Y. 2GJ. 
 
 Wheeler v. Clipper Mower and Reaper Co. Reaper. 
 Practicability. Reissue not for .same invention. Want of 
 novelty. Infringement, taking each part separately. 10 
 Blatch. 181; 6 Fisher, 1; 2 Off. Gaz. 442. 
 
 Wheeler v. McCormick. Harvester. Pleading, pendency of 
 other suit. Irregular to file two pleas without special leave 
 of court. Jurisdiction. 8 Blatch. 267; 4 Fisher, 433. 
 
 Wheeler v. McCormick. Harvester. Non-joinder of parties. 
 Piior decisions. Several reissues of one patent for its sev- 
 eral parts. Want of novelty. Infringement clear. 11 
 Blatch. 334; 6 Fisher, 551; 4 Off. Gaz. 692. 
 
 Wheeler v. Simpson. Saws. Result not patentable. In- 
 fringement, combination. 6 Off. Gaz. 435. 
 
 Whip Co. (See American Whip Co.) 
 
 Whipple v. Baldwin Manufacturing Co. Cotton-gin. 
 Original inventor, patent prima facie evidence. Construc- 
 tion of patents. 4 Fisher, 29. 
 
 Whipple v. Hutchinson. Iron bridges. Contempt, violation 
 of injunction. What is open and what not. 4 Blatch. 190. 
 
 Whipple i'. Middlesex Company. Cotton-gin. Construction 
 of patents. Want of novelty. Infringement, mechanical 
 changes, same result. 4 Fisher, 41. 
 
 White??. Allen. Fire-arms. Original inventor, patent ^jn'/na 
 facie evidence. What " first inventor " is. Patentability. 
 Abandonment. Want of novelty, foreign patents, trans- 
 lation. 2 Cliff. 224; 2 Fisher, 440. 
 
 White v. Boker. Fire-arms. Infringement, particular pat- 
 ent. 3 Fisher, 66. 
 
 Whitehead v. Kitson. Cotton-openers. State jurisdiction 
 in patent suits. 119 Mass. 484. 
 
 Whitely v. Fisher. Plows. Reissues, expiration, antedating. 
 Res adjudicalce. Powers of Commissioners. 4 Fisher, 248.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 131 
 
 Whitely v. Kirby. Harvester. Want of novelty. Infiinge- 
 ment, colorable alterations. 11 Wall. 678. 
 
 Whitely v. Swayxe. Harvester. Acts of public officer, rec- 
 ord showing disregard of rules. Oath of assignee to reissue 
 in lifetime of patentee. Keissue not for same invention, 
 fraud on Patent Office. 4 Fisher, 117. 
 
 Whitely v. Swayxe. Harvester. Abandoned experiments, 
 first inventor. 7 Wall. 685. 
 
 WniTixG V. Graves. Sawing machine. Inventions by em- 
 ploye. Equitable titles. Contract as a license. 13 Off. 
 Gaz. 455. 
 
 Whitxey v. Emmett. Glass knobs. What " useful " means. 
 Prior knowledge and use. Uncertainty in specification. 
 Excessive damages. 1 Baldwin, 303; 1 Robb, 567. 
 
 Whitxey v. Mowry. Car-wheels. Presumption of novelty 
 strengthened by extension. Want of novelty, state of art. 
 Infringement, substantial identity. Suspension of decree 
 till Master reports. 2 Bond, 45; 3 Fisher, 157. 
 
 Whitney v. Mowry. Car-wheels. Master's report, profits and 
 damages. 4 Fisher, 111. 
 
 Whitxey v. ^Iowry. Car-wheels. Master's report, evidence. 
 Profits, &c. Fraud not open collaterally. 4 Fisher, 207. 
 
 Whitxey v. Kollstoxe Machine Works. Lathes, irregu- 
 lar forms. Preliminary injunctions. Prior patent expired. 
 8 Off. Gaz. 908. 
 
 Whittemore v. Cutter. Wool-card machine. Right to sue, 
 assignee of half, joint action. Infringement, making to 
 use, but not using. Irregular oath of plaintiff. Clearness 
 in specification. Damages, counsel fees, &c. 1 Gall. 429; 
 1 Robb, 28. 
 
 Whittemore v. Cutter. Wool-card machine. Inventors of 
 part only. What identity is. Dedication. Actual dam- 
 ages. 1 Gall. 478; 1 Robb, 40. 
 
 WiCKE V. Kleixknecht. Box-nailing machine. Territorial 
 license to use. Used outside. 7 Off. Gaz. 1098.
 
 132 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 WiCKS V. Stevens. Cotton-presses. Reissue not for same in- 
 vention. 2 Woods, 310. 
 
 Wilbur v. Beecher. Bark-mill. Charge to jury. Clearness 
 in specification. Degree of utility required. Infringement, 
 change of shape. Damages. 2 Blatch. 132. 
 
 Wilcox v. Komp. Hoop-skirts. Infringement clear. Original 
 inventor. 7 Blatch. 126. 
 
 Wilder v. Adams. Safe. Covenant, consideration, defenses 
 allowed. Fraud. No profits from patent. Proper remedy 
 is on the covenant. 2 W. & M. 329. 
 
 Wilder v. Gaylor. Fire-proof safe. Notice under general 
 issue. Special pleas. 1 Blatch. 597. 
 
 Wilder v. McCormick. Fire-proof safe. Demurrers in gen- 
 eral. Technical defects may be amended. 2 Blatch. 31. 
 
 Wilder v. Stearns. Safe. Sale under contract. Royalty. 
 48 N. Y. 656. 
 
 WiLKiNS V. Spafford. Bristle-machine. Invention by em- 
 ploye, exclusive license to employer. Contract to serve. 
 13 Off. Gaz. 675. 
 
 Williams v. Empire Transportation Co. Plea to juris- 
 diction. Foreign corporation /ow«6? in State. 14 Off. Gaz. 
 523. 
 
 Williams v. Hicks. Saddles. Note, worthless patent, not 
 admissible under non assumpsit. False representations not 
 a good defense. 2 Vt. 36. 
 
 Williams v. Leonard. Interlocutory decree. Profits and 
 damages. Salaries of defendants. 9 Blatch. 476 ; 5 Fisher, 
 381. 
 
 Williams v. Rome, Watertown, and Ogdensburg Rail- 
 road. Locomotive-lamps. Patentable combinations, 
 aggregations. Combination is entirety. Want of novelty. 
 15 Off. Gaz. 653. 
 
 Wilson y. Barnum. Planing-machine. Authority of action of 
 patent-office on title to patent. Construction of patents. 
 Infringement, combination, change of form. 2 Fisher, 635.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 133 
 
 Wilson v. Barnum. rianing-machine. Want of novelty, 
 patent /jrma/acv'e evidence. Weight of ex parte proceed- 
 ings. Granting injunctions. Dissolution of injunctions. 
 1 Wall. Jr. 347; 2 Robb, 749. 
 
 Wilson v. Barnum. Planing-macliine. Jurisdiction of Su- 
 preme Court on certificate of division is only for law points. 
 8 How. 258. 
 
 Wilson v. Janes. Cooking-stove. Verdict set aside as 
 against evidence. 3 Blatch. 227. 
 
 Wilson v. Marlow. AVeather-guards for windows. Con- 
 struction of contracts, implied covenants. 66 111. 385. 
 
 Wilson v. Rousseau. Planing-machine. Ten questions cer- 
 tified to United States Supreme Court. 1 Blatch. 3. 
 
 Wilson v. Rousseau. Planing-machine. Extensions to ad- 
 ministrators. Covenant. Party claiming under adminis- 
 trator can sue one claiming under patentee. Right of 
 assignee to sue. Action of Board of Commissioners not 
 conclusive. Authority to reissue. 4 How. 646; 2 Robb, 
 873. 
 
 Wilson v. Sandford. Planing-machine. Jurisdiction, no 
 appeal lies on bill to set aside assignment. 10 How. 99. 
 
 Wilson v. Sherman. Planing-machine. Preliminary in- 
 junction, violation of license, misapprehension. 1 Blatch. 
 536. 
 
 Wilson r. Simpson. Planing-machine. Fraud, hearsay evi- 
 dence. Right of assignee to continue to use, right to 
 repair. 9 How. 109. 
 
 Wilson v. Stolly. Planing-machine. Reasonable notice of 
 injunction. 4 McLean, 273. 
 
 Wilson v. Stolly. Planing-machine. License as a defense. 
 Evidence of forfeiture of license. 4 McLean, 275. 
 
 Wilson v. Stolly. Planing-machine. License may be 
 assigned. Forfeiture of license by abandonment or neglect. 
 5 McLean, 1. 
 
 Wilson v. Turner. Planing-machine. Rights of assignees 
 and grantees. After extension. Valuable inventions. 
 What "renewal " means. Taney, Dec. 278.
 
 134 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Wilson v. Turner. Planing-machiue. " Wilson v. Rous- 
 seau settles this case." 4 How. 712; 2 Robb, 467. 
 
 Wilson Packing Co. v. Clapp. Cooked corned beef. Waut 
 of novelty. Granting preliminary injunctions. Intimida- 
 tion. 13 Off. Gaz. 368. 
 
 Wilton v. Thk Railroads. Notice of prior knowledge and 
 use, particularity required. 1 Wall. Jr. 192; 2 Robb, 641. 
 
 WiNANS V. Boston and Providence Railroad. Cars. 
 Invalidity of particular patent. 2 Story, 412; 2 Robb, 
 136. 
 
 WiNANS V. Denmead. Cars. When change of form is 
 material. 15 How. 330. 
 
 WiNANS V. Eaton. Cars. Preliminary injunctions, reason- 
 able doubt. Infringement. 1 Fisher, Ibl. 
 
 Winans v. New York and Erie Railroad. Cars. Charge 
 to jury. Want of novelty, patent prima facie evidence. 
 Construction of patents. Disclaimer. 1 Fisher, 213. 
 
 WiNANS V. New York and Erie Railroad. Cars. Rejec- 
 tion of evidence, expert testimony sometimes unnecessary. 
 21 How. 88. 
 
 WiNANS V. New York and Harlem Railroad. Cars. 
 Original inventor. Want of novelty. Infringement, im- 
 provements. Damages. 4 Fisher, 1. 
 
 Winans v. Schenectady and Troy Railroad. Cars. 
 Patent-office proceedings prima facie valid. 2 Blatch. 279. 
 
 Windmill Co. (See Continental Windmill Co.) 
 
 Wing v. Richardson. Plate-holder for cameras. Original 
 inventor, patent jorJ?«a facie evidence, how far presumption 
 extends. Date of invention. Waut of novelty. 2 Cliff. 
 449; 2 Fisher, 535. 
 
 Wing v. Schoonmaker. Plate-holder for cameras. Original 
 inventor, state of art. 3 Fisher, 607. 
 
 Wing v. Wakren. Plate-holder for cameras. Reissues to 
 patentee after assignment. 5 Fisher, 548; 2 Off. Gaz. 342.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 135 
 
 WiNTERMUTE V. Redington. Water-wheel. Charge to jury. 
 Assignments by administrators. Kiglits of inventors. 
 Utility. Patents for improvements. Principle not patent- 
 able. " IVIacliine." Damages. Infringement, identity. 
 1 Fisher, 2:39. 
 
 Wire Rail Co. (See New York Wire Rail Co.) 
 Wise v. Allis. Balancing millstones. Notice of prior use, 
 particularity required. 9 Wall. 737. 
 
 WoNSOX V. Gilman. JNfarine paint. Infringement. 11 Oif. 
 
 Gaz. 1011. 
 WoNsoN V. Peterson. Marine paint. Reissue not for same 
 
 invention. Defenses must be set up in answer. 13 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 549. 
 Wood, Ex Parte. Repeal of patents. Mandamus. Scire 
 
 facias. Matters of record. 9 Wheat. 603; 1 Robb, 438. 
 
 Wood v. Cleveland Rolling Mill Co. Nuts. Time within 
 which to apply for patent. 4 Fisher, 550. 
 
 Wood r. Michigan Southern Railroad. Car-brakes. Con- 
 struction of assignment, assignee before extension may use 
 after. 2 Bissell, 62 ; 3 Fisher, 464. 
 
 Wood v. Underhill. Brick-making. Uncertainty in specifi- 
 cation. 5 How. 1; 2 Robb, 588. 
 
 Wood v. Union Iron Works. Nuts. Time within which to 
 apply for patent. 4 Fisher, 550. 
 
 Wood v. Wells. Landau doors. Construction of license. 6 
 Fisher, 382. 
 
 Wood v. Willi.^ms. Clover-machine. Process to repeal pat- 
 ents. Patent suits are between parties, not United States. 
 Surreptitiously obtained. 1 Gilpin, 517; 1 Robb, 717. 
 
 Woodbury v. Wilcox. Invention is perfected conception. 2 
 A. L. T. (U. S.) R. 129. 
 
 Woodcock v. P.\rker. Splitting leather. Who first inventor 
 is in law. 1 Gall. 438; 1 Robb, 37. 
 
 Woodman v. Stimpson. Ornamenting leather. Patents are 
 construed for benefit of inventor. Patentability. Want of 
 novelty. Original inventor. First application. Com- 
 binations. Date of invention. 3 Fisher, 98.
 
 136 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Wood Paper Co. (See American Wood Paper Co.) 
 
 Wood Paper Patent. (Appeal, American Wood Paper 
 Co. v. Fibre Disintegrating Co.) Patentability, new 
 process with old result. Want of novelty. Reissue not for 
 same invention. Infringement. 23 Wall. 5G6. 
 
 Woodruff v. Barney. Relaxing costs, mileage for witnesses 
 out of State, models, copies of patents. 1 Bond, 528; 2 
 Fisher, 244. 
 
 Woodward v. Dinsmore. Solar camera. Validity of reissues. 
 Reissue not for same invention. Original inventor, pi-inted 
 publications. 4 Fisher, 163. 
 
 Woodward v. Morrison. Flour paste. State of art. In- 
 fringement, compound, well-known equivalents. Specifica- 
 tions are addressed to those skilled in the art. 1 Holmes, 
 124; 5 Fisher, 357; 2 Off. Gaz. 120. 
 
 WooDWORTH V. Cheever. Planing-machinc. Single witness 
 against patentee and his presumption. Extensions to ad- 
 ministrators. Assignee after extension. Security for costs. 
 3 Stoiy, 171; 2 Robb, 257. 
 
 WoODWORTH V. Cook. Planing-machine. Agreement, bona 
 fide purchasers. Misjoinder of plaintiffs. 2 Blatch. 151. 
 
 WooDWORTH V. Curtis. Planing-machine. Right to use one 
 machine, implies right to make it. Use after expiration of 
 license. 2 W. & M. 524; 2 Robb, 603. 
 
 WooDWORTH V. Edwards. Planing-machine. Omission of 
 oath to bill. Patent for twenty-eight years by extensions, 
 legality. Demurrers overruled. Dissolving injunctions. 3 
 W. &M. 120; 2 Robb, 610. 
 
 WooDWORTH V. Hall. Planing-machine. AVhen injunctions 
 will issue, long possession. Extensions to administrators. 
 " Acting Commissioners." Reissues relate back. Certified 
 copies of patents as evidence. 1 W. & M. 248; 2 Robb, 
 495. 
 
 WooDWORTH V. Hall. Planing-machine. Chief clerk acting 
 as Commissioner, validity of patents granted. Reissues re- 
 late back. Dissolution of injunctions. 1 W. & M. 389; 2 
 Robb, 517.
 
 LIST OP CASES. 137 
 
 WoODWORTH V. Rogers. Planing-machine. Contempt, same 
 principle. Dissolving injunctions. Injunction as a rem- 
 edy. 3 W. & M. 135; 2 llobb, 625. 
 
 WooDWORTH V. Sherman. Planing-machine. Single witness 
 against patentee and his presumption. Extensions to ad- 
 ministrators. Assignee after extension. Secui'ity for costs. 
 3 Story, 171 ; 2 Robb, 257. 
 
 WooDWORTH V. Stone. Planing-machine. Dissolution of in- 
 junctions after reissue. Assignee's consent to reissue. 
 Reissue not for same invention. 3 Story, 749; 2 Robb, 
 29G. 
 
 WooDWORTH V. Weed. Planing-machine. Forfeiture of li- 
 cense. 1 Blatch. 165. 
 
 WoODWORTH V. Wilson. Planing-machine. Assignee's right 
 to apply for extension. Original inventor. Clearness in 
 specification. Assignee's and assignor's right to sue. 4 
 How. 712; 2 Robb, 473. 
 
 WooLCOCKS V. Many. Speaking-tube whistles. Infringe- 
 ment, combination, equivalents. 9 Blatch. 139; 5 Fisher, 
 72. 
 
 WoosTER V. Calhoun. Ruffle. Product not patentable. 
 Original inventor. 11 Blatch. 215; 6 Fisher, 514. 
 
 WoosTER V. SiDENBERG. Sewing-machine. Assignee before 
 extension uses after. 13 Blatch. 88; 10 Off. Gaz. 244. 
 
 WoosTER V. Taylor. Sewing-machine. Agreement. As- 
 signments before extension. Nominal consideration. 12 
 Blatch. 384; 8 Off. Gaz. 644. 
 
 WoosTER V. Taylor. .Sewing-machine. Master's report, 
 profits and damages. 14 Blatch. 403. 
 
 Woven Tape Skirt Co., In re. Skirts. Receiver of corpora- 
 tion has the exclusive right to use its patents. Infringement 
 suits must be brought in United States courts. 12 Hun 
 (N. Y), 111. 
 
 Wright v. Glick. Farm-gates. Bill dismissed. 13 Off. Gaz. 
 47.
 
 138 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Wright v. Hickey. Farm-gates. Bill dismissed. 13 Off. 
 Gaz. 47. 
 
 Wright v. McMillan. Farm-gates. Bill dismissed. 13 Off. 
 Gaz. 47. 
 
 Wright v. Smithpeter. Farm-gates. Bill dismissed. 13 
 Off. Gaz. 47. 
 
 Wright v. Wilson. Looms. Breach of warranty. State 
 court has jurisdiction except where validity is involved. 
 11 Rich. (S. C.) 144. 
 
 Wringing Machine Co. (See Metropolitan Wringing 
 Machine Co.) 
 
 Wyeth r. Stone. Ice-cutter. Want of novelty. In- 
 fringement, same mode of operation. Public use, aban- 
 donment. Refusing injunctions. Construction of pat- 
 ents. Recording assignments. 1 Story, 273; 2 Robb, 
 23. 
 
 Yale and Greenleaf Manufacturing Co. v. North. 
 Locks. Want of novelty, combinations. 5 Blatch. 455; 3 
 Fisher, 279. 
 
 York and Maryland Line Railroad v. Winans. Cars. 
 Infringement, corporation in other State connected with 
 one in this. 17 How. 30. 
 
 Young v. Hunter. Wagon-wheels. Contract, time to try 
 and elect, reassignment, conditions precedent. 6 N. Y. 
 203. 
 
 Young v. Lippman. Hoop-skirt springs. Infringement, par- 
 ticular patent. 9 Blatch. 277; 5 Fisher, 230; 2 Off. Gaz. 
 249. 
 
 Young v. Lippman. Hoop-skirt springs. Motion to dissolve. 
 Want of novelty. 9 Blatch. 283; 5 Fisher, 236; 2 Off. 
 Gaz. 342.
 
 LIST OF CASES. 139 
 
 YuENGLiNG V. JoHXSON. Liquoi-iegister. Preliminary in- 
 junctions, reasonable notice no longer required. Discretion 
 of United States Courts. Action of Commissioner is prima 
 facie evidence for or against. New combination of old de- 
 vices is not entitled to equivalents. 1 Hughes, 607. 
 
 z. 
 
 Zane v. Peck. Self-closing faucet. Want of novelty, econ- 
 omy, structural change. 12 Off. Gaz. 518
 
 PART II. 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS.
 
 PART n. 
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 
 
 ABANDONED EXPERIMENTS. 
 
 Single machine, twenty j'ears before, not enough. Blake v. 
 
 Rawson, 1 Holmes, 200; 6 Fisher, 74; 3 Off. Gaz. 122. 
 Will not anticipate patent if unknown to patentee. Cahoon v. 
 
 Ring, 1 Cliff. 592; 1 Fisher, 397. 
 Experiments equivocal in their results and given up for years 
 
 will not anticipate. Ellithorp v. Robertson, 4 Blatch. 307; 
 
 2 Fisher, 83. 
 Cast aside, taken apart, and parts used for other purposes. 
 
 Gallahue v. Butterfield, 10 Blatch. 232; G Fisher, 203; 2 
 
 Off. Gaz. 645. 
 Lost arts, finally forgotten. Gaylor v. Wilder, 10 IIow. 477. 
 Old remains. Howe v. Underwood, 1 Fisher, 160. 
 Attempt to produce, if unsuccessful will not anticipate. Many 
 
 V. Sizer, 1 Fisher, 17. 
 Statement to that effect by plaintiff not admissible. ^lany v. 
 
 Jagger, 1 Blatch. 372. 
 Did not go into use, and were abandoned. McConnick v. Sey- 
 mour, 3 Blatch. 209. 
 Never made public, and at last abandoned and lost. Murphy v. 
 
 Eastham, 1 Holmes, 113; 5 Fisher, 306; 2 Off. Gaz. 61. 
 Experimental and fruitless. National Car Spring Co. v. Union 
 
 Car Spring Co.. 12 Blatch. SO; 6 Off. Gaz. 221. 
 Successful experiments in public which show the merits of the 
 
 invention, though disused, are not ahandoned. Northwest 
 
 Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher 
 
 Co., 6 Off. Gaz. 34. 
 Private use, rea.sonable diligence. Ransom r. Mayor of New 
 
 York, 1 Fisher, 252.
 
 144 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Temporary disuse because demand was light is not abandoned, 
 experiment. Snow v. Tapley, 13 Off. Gaz. 548. 
 
 Abortive experiments, abandoned after filing caveat. Stain- 
 thorp V. Elkinton, 1 Fisher, 349. 
 
 If they furnish definite ideas to inventor defeats his patent. 
 Union Paper Bag Machine Co. v. Pultz and AValkley Co., 
 15 Ofe.Gaz. 423. 
 
 However suggestive, producing no practical result, does not an- 
 ticipate. United Nickel Co. v. Anthes, 1 Holmes, 155; 5 
 Fisher, 517; 1 Off. Gaz. 578. 
 
 Inventor may enter the field abandoned by a less successful in- 
 ventor. Whitely v. Swayne, 7 Wall. 685. 
 (See Original Inventor.) 
 
 ABANDONMENT. 
 
 Acquiescence in use by public. Howe v. Williams, 2 Fisher, 
 395; Wyeth v. Stone, 1 Story, 273; 2 Robb, 23. 
 
 Rejected application. Adams v. Edwai'ds, 1 Fisher, 1 ; Good- 
 year Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Wetherbee, 2 Cliff. 555; 3 
 Fisher, 87. 
 
 Continuity of applications where no actual abandonment. Good- 
 year Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Willis, 7 Off. Gaz. 41. 
 
 After application, proof must be clear. M'Millin v. Barclay, 
 5 Fisher, 189. 
 
 Between successive applications ; public use. Howe v. Newton, 
 2 Fisher, 531. 
 
 Remissness of agents in filing application after it was ready. 
 Birdsell v. McDonald, 6 Off. Gaz. 682. 
 
 Before first application. Rich v. Lippincott, 2 Fisher, 1. 
 
 Causes of, patriotism, generosity, despair, &c. Adams v, Ed- 
 wards, 1 Fisher, 1. 
 
 Delay, involuntary. Adams v. Jones, 1 Fisher, 527. 
 
 Delay while perfecting invention. Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. 
 322; Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. 583. 
 
 May be done at any time. American Hide and Leather Split- 
 ting, &c. Co. V. American Tool Co., 1 Holmes, 503; 4 
 Fisher, 284. 
 
 After patent issues, proof must be strong. Bell v. Daniels, 1 
 Bond, 212; 1 Fisher, 372.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 145 
 
 Five years lying dormant. Carleton v. Atwood, 2 A. L. T. 
 
 (U. S) R. 129. 
 Nine years' neglect and invention by others. Consolidated 
 
 Fruit Jar Co. v. Wright, 12 Blalch. 149; 6 Off. Gaz. 327; 
 
 also 4 Otto, 92. 
 Machine put away in cellar. Hall v. Bird, 6 Blatch. 438; 3 
 
 Fisher, 595. 
 Reissue prima facie evidence against. Hoffheims v. Brandt, 
 
 3 Fisher, 218. 
 Principles of abandonment. Johnson v. Fassman, 1 Woods, 
 
 138; 5 Fisher, 471; 2 Off. Gaz. 94. 
 Unavoidable delay. Jones v. Sewall, 3 Cliff. 563; 6 Fisher, 
 
 313; 2 Off. Gaz. 630. 
 Mere delay is not enough. Kelleher v. Darling, 14 Off. Gaz. 673. 
 Delay during war is not. Knox o. Loweree, 6 Off. Gaz. 802. 
 Public use as evidence. Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania Railroad, 6 Off. Gaz. 927. 
 Non-action for eighteen years, original reason immaterial. 
 
 Marsh v. Commissioner of Patents, 3 Bissell, 321. 
 Too long delay and invention by others. Marsh v. Sayles, 5 
 
 Fisher, 61*0; 2 Off. Gaz. 398. 
 Sale by inventor within two years not conclusive. McCormick 
 
 V. Seymour, 2 Blatch. 240. 
 Evidence of. lackering v. McCuIloch, 13 Off. Gaz. 818. 
 Cannot be recalled. Ransom v. Mayorof New York, 1 Fisher, 252. 
 Publicity of experiments to test the invention. Andrews v. 
 
 Carman, 13 Blatch. 307. 
 Public use for ten years with consent of inventor. Bevin v. 
 
 East Hampton Bell Co., 9 Blatch. 50; 5 Fisher, 23. 
 Use to test qualities and remedy defects. City of Elizabeth v. 
 
 Pavement Co., 7 Otto, 126. 
 Must be to the public, and must be set up in answer. Clark v. 
 
 Scott, 9 Blatch. 301; 5 Fisher, 245; 2 Off. Gaz. 4. 
 Delay, poverty and wrong action by Patent Office. Colgate v. 
 
 Western Union Telegraph Co., 14 Off. Gaz. 943. 
 Omission to claim in patent. Conklin i'. Stafford, 5 Off. Gaz. 235. 
 Lapse of time from issue to suit. Emerson v. Hogg, 2 Blatch. 7. 
 Disuse of patent after issue is not abandonment. Gray v. 
 
 James, Peters, C. C. 394; 1 Robb, 120. 
 10
 
 146 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Inference from specification. Henderson v. Cleveland Co-oper- 
 ative Store Co., 12 Off. Gaz. 4. 
 
 Element taken out of model and substitute put in. Johnson v. 
 Root, 2 Cliff. 108; 2 Fisher, 291. 
 
 Publication of discovery and free use by public. Pennock v. 
 Dialogue, 4 Wash. 538; 1 Robb, 466. 
 
 Consent is necessary. Pierson v. Eagle Screw Co., 3 Story, 402; 
 2 Robb, 268. 
 
 Declarations of intention not enough. Pitts v. Hall, 2 Blatch. 
 229. 
 
 Before first application. Rich v. Lippincott, 2 Fisher, 1. 
 
 Construction of sect. 7 of 1839, on prior use. Sanders v. Logan, 
 
 2 Fisher, 167. 
 
 Does not depend on intention, but fact. Shaw v. Cooper, 7 
 Peters, 29 ; 1 Robb, 643. 
 
 Forfeitures and abandonment not favored, but must be con- 
 clusively shown. Singer v. Braunsdorf, 7 Blatch. 521. 
 
 Laches of his attorneys. Weston i\ White, 13 Blatch. 447. 
 
 Claim for combination only is abandonment of its parts. Bat- 
 ten V. Taggert, 2 Wall. Jr. 101. 
 
 Sales by inventor more than two years before. Earl v. Page, 
 6 N. H. 477. 
 
 Rejected twice, delay of eleven years, four patents meanwhile. 
 Gates V. Benson, 3 A. L. T. (U. S.) R. 113. 
 
 Evidence must be of a distinctive character. Hovey v. Henry, 
 
 3 West. L. J. 153. 
 
 Neglect for nine years. Rowley v. Mason, 2 A. L. T. (U. S.) 
 
 R. 106. 
 Mere lapse of time not conclusive. Russell and Erwin Manu- 
 facturing Co. V. Mallory, 10 Blatch. 140; 5 Fisher, 632; 2 
 
 Off. Gaz. 495. 
 Abandonment is a fact, not a conclusion of law. Sprague v. 
 
 Adriance, 14 Off. Gaz. 308. 
 Weight of Commissioner's decision upon. United States Rifle 
 
 and Cartridge Co. v. Whitney Arms Co., 14 Blatch. 94; 11 
 
 Off. Gaz. 373. 
 Experimental use. United States Rifle and Cartridge Co. v. 
 
 Whitney Arms Co., 14 Blatch. 94; 11 Off. Gaz. 373. 
 (See Dedication; License; Pleading; Preliminary In- 
 
 .; UNCTIONS.)
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 147 
 
 ABATEMENT. 
 (See Partners; Pleading.) 
 
 ACCIDENT. 
 (See Invention.) 
 
 ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. 
 (See Contract.) 
 
 ACCOUNT. 
 
 Right to an account is incident of and dependent on injunction. 
 Draper v. Hudson, 208; 6 Fisher, 327; 3 Off. Gaz. 354. 
 
 Where injunction cannot be granted at once. ImJay v. Nor- 
 wich and Worcester Raihoad, 4 Blatch. 227; 1 Fisher, 340. 
 
 Without injunction. Smith v. Baker's Administrators, 5 Off. 
 Gaz. 496. 
 
 Without injunction, patent having expired. I inlay v. Norwich 
 and Worcester Raihoad, 4 Blatch. 227; 1 Fisher, 340; Sey- 
 mour V. Marsh, 6 Fisher, 115; 9 Phila. 380; 2 Off. Gaz. 
 675. 
 
 Account of profits. Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 620; 5 
 Fisher, 494; 1 Off. Gaz. 492; Providence Rubber Co. v. 
 Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788. 
 
 (See Bill; Estoppel; Jurisdiction.) 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT. 
 
 (See Contract.) 
 
 ACQUIESCENCE. 
 
 (See Infringement; Injunction; Preliminary Injunc- 
 tions.) 
 
 ACTS. 
 
 Of 1789, construction. Chaffee v. Hayward, 20 How. 208. 
 1836, sect. 14. Merchant v. Lewis, 1 Bond, 172.
 
 148 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 1836, repeal of, does not aifect patents granted under it. Union 
 
 Paper Bag Machine Co. v. Newell, 11 Blatch. 379; 6 
 
 Fisher, 582; 5 Off. Gaz. 459. 
 1839, constitutionality. Blanchard v. Sprague, 3 Sumner, 535; 
 
 1 Robb, 734. 
 Evans's special act. Evans v. Jordan and Morehead, 9 Cranch, 
 
 199; 1 Robb, 57; Evans r. Weiss, 2 Wash. 342; 1 Robb, 10. 
 Woodworth's special act. Gibson v. Gifford, 1 Blatch. 529. 
 (See Abandonment; Extensions; Fraud; Public Officer; 
 Reissue; Statutes.) 
 
 ADMINISTRATOR. 
 
 Appointment of, not open collaterally. Northwest Fire Ex- 
 tinguisher Co. V. Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co., 6 
 Off. Gaz. 34. 
 
 Liability, royalties are not " new assets." Robinson v. Hodge, 
 117 Mass. 222. 
 
 Rights of administratrix versus assignee. Oliver v. Morgan, 10 
 Heisk. (Tenn.) 322. 
 (See Assignment; Extensions; Patent; Reissue.) 
 
 ADMISSIONS. 
 
 Of parties to contract. Goodyear v. Gary, 4 Blatch. 271. 
 
 Generally. Ely v. Monson, 4 Fisher, 64. 
 
 By defendant, weight of. Hussey v. McCormick, 1 Bissell, 
 
 300; 1 Fisher, 509. 
 Striking out admission of infringement. Morehead v. Jones, 
 
 3 Wall. Jr. 306; Ruggles v. Eddy, 11 Blatch. 524. 
 (See Answer; Preliminary Injunctions.) 
 
 ADVICE OF COUNSEL. 
 (See Injunction.) 
 
 AFFIDAVITS. 
 Not entitled in cause. Buerk v. Imhauser, 10 Off. Gaz. 907. 
 Immaterial. Lockwood v. Lock wood, 33 Iowa, 198. 
 In support of bill. Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 McLean, 250; 2 Robb, 
 
 118. 
 Taken before bill filed. Baldwin v. Bernhard, 5 Fisher, 442 ; 2 
 
 Off. Gaz. 320; 9 Blatch. 509, note.
 
 SYNOPSIS OP LAW POINTS. 149 
 
 Practice as to. Day r. Boston Belting Co., 16 Law Rep. 329. 
 (See Prelimixauy Injunctions.) 
 
 AGENTS. 
 
 (See Abandonment; Bill; Infkingement; In.tunction; 
 Note; Fkeliminaky Injunctions; Sale.) 
 
 AGREEMENT. 
 (See Contract.) 
 
 AGGREGATION. 
 (See Combination; Patentability; Want of Novelty.) 
 
 ALIEN. 
 
 Assignments from. Tatham v. Lowher, 2 Blatch. 49. 
 False oath. Child v. Adams, 3 Wall. Jr. 20; 1 Fisher, 189. 
 (See Assignment.) 
 
 ALLEGATION. 
 
 General allegation of infringement is enough. Haven v. Brown, 
 6 Fisher, 413; Thatcher Heating Co. v. Carbon Stove Co., 
 15 Off. Gaz. 1051; Turrell v. Cammerrer, 3 Fisher, 462. 
 
 That infringement is contrary to statute, not necessary. Parker 
 V. Haworth, 4 McLeaw, 370; 2 Robb, 725. 
 
 Of petition for patent, not recited. Evans v. Chambers, 2 
 Wash. 125; 1 Robb, 7. 
 
 Of public use, notice of places required. Agawam Co. v. Jor- 
 dan, 7 AVall. 5S3. 
 
 Of residence of parties. Teese v. Phelps, 1 McAllister, 17. 
 (See Pleading ; Public Use.) 
 
 AMBIGUITY. 
 (See Reissue ; Uncertainty.) 
 
 AMENDMENT. 
 
 (See Answer; Bill; Corporation; Declaration; Decree; 
 Evidence.)
 
 150 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 Amending, laches. Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 13 Blatch. 
 349; 9 Off. Gaz. 965. 
 
 Amending after decree. India-rubber Comb Co. v. Phelps, 8 
 Blatch. 85; 4 Fisher, 315. 
 
 Amending by striking out admission of use of articles or in- 
 fringement. Morehead v. Jones, 3 Wall. Jr. 306; Ruggles 
 V. Eddy, 11 Blatch. 524. 
 
 Prematurely filed. Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 McLean, 250; 2 Robb, 
 118. 
 (See Abandonment; Defense; Evidence; Injunction; 
 Patent.) 
 
 ANTICIPATION. 
 (See Want of Novelty.) 
 
 APPEALS. 
 
 No appeal lies on bill to set aside assignment. Wilson v. Sand- 
 ford, 10 How. 99. 
 
 From Commissioner, refusal to reissue. Gould, II. W., Ex parte, 
 1 McArthur, 410; 5 Off. Gaz. 121. 
 
 From Commissioner. Conklin v. Stafford, 5 Off. Gaz. 235; 
 Merrill, Rufus S., 5 Off. Gaz. 120; Pennock, J. L., 5 Off. 
 Gaz. 668. 
 
 Cross-appeals. Blake v. Robertson, 4 Otto, 728; 11 Off. Gaz. 
 877; Robertson v. Blake, 4 Otto, 728; 11 Off. Gaz. 877. 
 
 Only from final decrees. Barnard v. Gibson, 7 How. 650. 
 
 None from discretion of Circuit Court. Dean v. Mason, 20 
 How. 198. 
 
 Case coming up by discretion comes up as a whole. Hogg v. 
 Emerson, 6 How. 437; 2 Robb, 655. 
 
 Dismissing, plaintiffs owning both sides of litigation. Ameri- 
 can Wood Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 ^Vall. 333. 
 
 Dismissing, parting with interest. Dean v. Mason, 20 How. 198. 
 
 No appeal from injunction and account till Master reports. 
 Potter V. Mack, 3 Fisher, 428. 
 
 Frivolous appeal, double costs. Rice v. Garnhart, 34 Wise. 470.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 151 
 
 APPEARANCE. 
 (See Jurisdiction; Waiver.) 
 
 APPLICATION. 
 Continuity of, •withdrawing one and putting in other. God- 
 frey I'. Eames, 1 Wall. 317. 
 Date. Singer v. Braunsdorf, 7 Blatch. 521. 
 Date cannot be proved by parol. Wayne v. Winter, 6 McLean, 
 
 344. 
 First application. Woodman v. Stimpson, 3 Fisher, 98. 
 Where there are several, patent is presumed to issue on the 
 
 frst. Pelton v. Waters, 7 OfE. Gaz. 425. 
 
 For patents are ex parte only. Potter v. Stevens, 2 Fisher, 163. 
 
 Time, within which to apply for patent. Wood v. Cleveland 
 
 Rolling Mill Co., 4 Fisher, 550. 
 
 (See Abandonment; Assignee; Evidence; Invention; 
 
 Prior Use; Public Use.) 
 
 APPORTIONMENT. 
 
 (See Assignment; Damages.) 
 
 APPROXIMATIONS. 
 
 (See Invention.) 
 
 ARBITRATORS. 
 Presumed to decide correctly. Reedy v. Scott, 7 Off. Gaz. 463. 
 
 ART. 
 
 Patents for. French v. Rogers, 1 Fisher, 133. 
 Lost arts. Gay lor v. Wilder, 10 How. 477. 
 (See Abandoned Experiments; Construction of Patents; 
 Definition; Patentability.) 
 
 ASSIGNEES. 
 
 Assignees of executors. Carew v. Boston Elastic Fabrics Co., 
 3 Cliff. 356 ; 5 Fisher, 90.
 
 162 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Assignee of executor may reissue. Carew v. Boston Elastic 
 Fabrics Co., 1 Holmes, 45; 1 Off. Gaz. 91. 
 
 Must join in surrender and reissue. Meyer v. Bailey, 8 Off. 
 Gaz. 437. 
 
 Legal representatives include assignees. Hamilton v. Kings- 
 bury, 14 Off. Gaz. 448. 
 
 Assignee sues, not patentee. Herbert v. Adams, 4 Mason, 15; 
 1 Robb, 505. 
 
 Cannot sue in equity. Ogle v. Ege, 4 Wash. 584 ; 1 Robb, 516. 
 
 Joining as plaintiffs. Stein ?>. Goddard, 1 McAllister, 82. 
 
 Of part, cannot sue. Tyler v. Tuel, 6 Cranch, 324; 1 Robb, 
 14. 
 
 Right to sue. Wilson v. Rousseau, 4 How. 646; 2 Robb, 373; 
 Woodworth v. Wilson, 4 How. 712 ; 2 Robb, 473. 
 
 Rights after extension. Eunson v. Dodge, 18 Wall. 414; 5 Off. 
 Gaz. 95; Wilson v. Turner, Taney, Dec. 278; Woodworth 
 V. Cheever, 3 Story, 171; 2 Robb, 257. 
 
 Before extension uses after. Wood v. Michigan Southern Rail- 
 road, 2 Bissell, 62; 3 Fisher, 464; Wooster v. Sidenberg, 
 13 Blatch. 88; 10 Off. Gaz. 244. 
 
 Rights are only such as inventors have. Tatham v. Loring, 5 
 N. y. Leg. Obs. 207. 
 
 Right to continue to use and repair. Wilson v. Simpson, 9 
 How. 109. 
 
 Right to apply for extension. Woodworth v. Wilson, 4 How. 
 712; 2 Robb, 473. 
 
 Territorial assignee, rights of. McKay v. Wooster, 2 Sawyer, 
 373; 6 Fisher, 375; 3 Off. Ga?;. 441 ; Simpson v. Wilson, 4 
 How. 709; 2 Robb, 469. 
 
 Territorial assignee cannot stop patentee or others working out- 
 side of his territory. Kempton v. Bray, 99 Mass. 350. 
 
 (See Administrator; Assignment; In.junction; Reissue ; 
 Sale.) 
 
 ASSIGNMENTS. 
 
 By administrators. Wintermute v. Redington, 1 Fisher, 239. 
 Agreement to assign does not bar suits. Park v. Little, 3 Wash. 
 
 198; 1 Robb, 17. 
 From alien patentees. Tatham v. Lowber, 2 Blatch. 49.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 163 
 
 Apportionment of rights. Brooks v. Byam, 2 Story, 525 ; 2 
 
 Robb, IGl. 
 Patents can be divided only according to United States laws. 
 
 Kempton v. Bray, 99 Mass. 350. 
 Assignments in whole or in part. Parker v. Ilaworth, 4 Mc- 
 Lean, 370; 2 Robb, 725. 
 To company and use Ijy its assignee. Emigh v. Chamberlain, 1 
 
 Bissell, 3G7; 2 Fisher, 192. 
 Compelling assignments. Binney v. Annan, 107 Mass. 94. 
 Conditional assignments. Brooks v. Stolley, 3 McLean, 523; 
 
 2 Robb, 28L 
 Consideration, parol evidence to vaiy. "Wheeler v. Billings, 38 
 
 N. Y. 263. 
 Construction of, extraneous facts. Day v. Cary, 1 Fisher, 424. 
 Construction of, written instruments. Day v. Stellman, 1 
 
 Fisher, 487. 
 Construction of, before issue and before extension. Gear v. 
 
 Grosvenor, 1 Holmes, 215; 6 Fisher, 314; 3 Off. Gaz. 380. 
 Construction of, habendum clause. Gear i'. Holmes, 6 Fisher, 
 
 595; Jenkins v. Nicolson Pavement Co., 1 Abbott, 567; 4 
 
 Fisher, 201. 
 Construction, " term for which are or may be granted." Am- 
 erican Nicolson Pavement Co. v. Jenkins, 14 Wall. 452; 5 
 
 Fisher, 491; 1 Off. Gaz. 465. 
 Copies of, certified. Lee v. Blandy, 1 Bond, 361; 2 Fi-sher, 89. 
 Date of. Dyer v. Rich, 1 Met. (Mass.) 180. 
 Parol declarations of patentee, effect. Baldwin v. Sibley, 1 
 
 Cliff. 1.50. 
 Amounting to quitclaim deed. Gilmore r. Aiken, 118 Mass. 94. 
 To defendant, effect. Clum v. Brewer, 2 Curtis, 506. 
 Effect on extension. Blanchard Gunstock Factoiy v. Warner, 1 
 
 Blatch. 258 ; Chase v. Walker, 3 Fisher, 120 ; Mowiy v. Grand 
 
 Street and Newton Railroad, 10 Blatch. 89; 5 Fisher, 
 
 586. 
 
 Effect of, by statute. Brooks v. Bicknell, 4 McLean, 64. 
 Effect of, parol evidence to vary not admissible, Ruggles v. 
 
 Eddy, 10 Blatch. 52; 5 Fisher, 581. 
 Admissibility of evidence of a.ssignment. Many v. Jagger, 1 
 
 Blatch. 372; Munde u. Lambie, 122 Mass. 33!J.
 
 154 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Assignment of executi'ix as administratrix. Newell v. West, 13 
 
 Blatch. 114; 8 Off. Gaz. 598. 
 Extensions not carried. Case v. Kedfield, 4 McLean, 526; 2 
 
 Robb, 741. 
 Befoi-e extension. Gibson v. Cook, 2 Blatch. 144. 
 Of extension before granted. Railroad Co. v. Trimble, 10 WaU. 
 
 367. 
 Before extension, nominal consideration. Wooster v. Taylor, 
 
 12 Blatch. 384 ; 8 Off. Gaz. 644. 
 Interest conveyed by. Ritter v. Serrell, 2 Blatch. 379. 
 Interpretation of assignments. Waterman v. Wallace, 13 Blatch. 
 
 129. 
 Before issue. Cammeyer v. Newton, 4 Otto, 225; 11 Off. Gaz. 
 
 287 ; Gaylor v. Wilder, 10 How. 477. 
 Before issue, effect on extensions. Clum v. Brewer, 2 Curtis, 506. 
 Before issue, what it conveys. Emmons v. Sladdin, 9 Off. Gaz. 
 
 352. 
 Before issue, issue to assignee, he has right to get extension. 
 
 Hendrie v. Sayles, 8 Otto, 546. 
 Before issue is good. Herbert v. Adams, 4 Mason, 15 ; 1 Robb, 
 
 505. 
 Before issue for poverty of inventor. Rathbone v. Orr, 5 Mc- 
 Lean, 131. 
 Which conveys no interest in the patent-right is a mere license. 
 
 Armstrong v. Hanlenbeck, 3 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 43. 
 Patentee has a right to assign or license as most profitable. Burr 
 
 V. Duryee, 2 Fisher, 275. 
 Distinguished from license. Farrington v. Gregory, 4 Fisher, 
 
 221 ; Littlefield v. Ferry, 21 Wall. 205 ; 7 Off. Gaz. 964 ; 
 
 Potter V. Holland, 4 Blatch. 206; 1 Fisher, 327; Sanford 
 
 V. Messer, 1 Holmes, 149; 5 Fisher, 411 ; 2 Off. Gaz. 470. 
 Assignee can sue, licensee cannot. Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 
 
 205 ; 7 Off. Gaz. 964. 
 What it means. Barnes v. Morgan, 3 Hun (N. Y.), 703; 6 Th. 
 
 6 C. (N. Y.) 105. 
 
 Ohio law. Blakenay v. Goode, 30 Ohio St. 350. 
 Failure to record does not forfeit right of assignee. Boyd v. 
 McAlpin, 3 McLean, 427; 2 Robb, 277; Perry v. Corning, 
 
 7 Blatch. 195.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 155 
 
 Record only necessary by way of notice to strangers. Case o. 
 Redfield, 4 McLean, 526; 2 Robb, 741. 
 
 Omission to state record of is cured by verdict. Dobson v. Camp- 
 bell, 1 Sumn. 319; 1 Robb, 681. 
 
 Must be recorded to defeat subsequent purchasers. Gibson v. 
 Cook, 2 Blatch. 144; Hig^jiiis v. Strong, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 182; 
 TurnbuU v. Weir Plow Co., 6 Bissell, 225; 7 Off. Gaz. 173. 
 
 Time to record. Pitts v. Wliitman, 2 Story, 609; 2 Robb, 189. 
 
 Cannot sue till recorded. Wyeth v. Stone, 1 Story, 273; 2 Robb, 
 23. 
 
 Record only necessary as notice to subsequent purchasers. Black 
 V. Stone, 33 Ala. 327 ; Hall v. Speer, 6 Pitts. L. J. 403. 
 
 Assignment before issue of patent may be recorded at any time 
 before issue of patent. Gay v. Cornell, 1 Blatch. 506. 
 
 Unrecorded, good except against creditors and bona Jide pur- 
 chasers. Holden v. Curtis, 2 N. H. 61. 
 
 Statute is directory on subject of recording, not peremptory. 
 Loudon V. Birt, 4 Lid. 566. 
 
 Valid without recording. McKernan v. Hite, 6 Ind. 428. 
 
 Unrecorded, good against subsequent assignees without consid- 
 eration. Saxton V. Aultman, 15 Ohio St. 471. 
 
 Clerk in Patent Office as witness of record. Sone v. Palmer, 28 
 Mo. 539. 
 
 After patent is rejected. Gay v. Cornell. 1 Blatch. 506. 
 
 "Without restriction." McKay v. Wooster, 2 Sawyer, 373; 6 
 Fisher, 375; 3 Off. Gaz. 441. 
 
 And rights of assignees. Suydam v. Day, 2 Blatch. 20. 
 
 Parties to sue. Blanchard v. Eldi-idge, 1 Wall. Jr. 337; 2 
 Robb, 737 ; Dibble v. Augur, 7 Blatch. 86. 
 
 Territorial, use outside. Adams v. Burke, 1 Holmes, 40; 4 
 Fi.sher, 392. 
 
 Territorial rights. Boyd v. Brown, 3 McLean, 295; 2 Robb, 
 203. 
 
 Territorial right to use. Dorsey Revolving Harvester Rake 
 Co. V. Bradley Manufacturing Co., 12 Blatch. 202. 
 
 Territorial assignments. Hamilton i>. Kingsbury, 14 Off. Gaz. 
 448. 
 
 Territorial assignments, rights conveyed. May v. Chaffee, 2 
 Dillon, 385; 5 Fisher, 160.
 
 156 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Title to convey, defendant's title defective. Moore v. Bare, 11 
 
 Iowa, 198. 
 Must be in writing. Galpin v. Atwater, 29 Conn. 93; Jordan 
 
 V. Dobson, 2 Abbott, 398; 7 Phila. 533; 4 Fisher, 232. 
 (See Alien ; Appeal ; Coxtract ; Extension; License; 
 
 Note; Preliminary Injunctions: Reissue; Title.) 
 
 ATTACHMENT. 
 (See Injunction ; Master.) 
 
 ATTORNEY. 
 
 Powers of attorney. Day v. Candee, 3 Fisher, 9. 
 (See Abandonment; Contract.) 
 
 AUTHORITY. 
 (See Commissioner ; Court.) 
 
 BAR. 
 (See Pleading ; Suit.) 
 
 BELIEF. 
 (See Inventor.) 
 
 BILL IN EQUITY. 
 
 For account on]y. Perry v. Corning, fi Blatch. 134. 
 For account and discovery. Perry v. Corning, 6 Blatch. 134. 
 Amendments. Tremaine v. Hitchcock, 7 Off. Gaz. 1055. 
 Successive bills for continuing infiingement. Pennsylvania 
 
 Salt Co. V. Myers, 1 AVeekly Notes, 377; Turrell v. Spaeth, 
 
 9 Off. Gaz. 1163. 
 Discovery of profits. Vaughan v. Central Pacific Railroad, 4 
 
 Sawyer, 280; Vaughan v. East Tennessee, Virginia, and 
 
 Georgia Railroad, 11 Off. Gaz. 789. 
 Omission of oath. National Hay Rake Co. v. Harbert, 2 
 
 Weekly Notes, 100; Woodworth ;;. Edwards, 3 W. & M. 
 
 120; 2 Robb, 610. 
 For reassignment, agent to sell, buys. Jeffries v. Wiester, 2 
 
 Sawyer, 135.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 157 
 
 Quia timet for threatened infringement. Turrell v. Spaetli, 9 
 
 Off. Gaz. 1163. 
 Review, laches. Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 
 
 805. 
 Revivor. Troy Iron and Nail Factory i;. Winslow, 11 Blatch. 
 
 513. 
 What it should show. Gutta-percha Comb Co. c. Goodyear 
 
 Rubber Co., 3 Sawyer, 542. 
 (See Appeal; Decree; Demurrer; Discovery; Excep- 
 tions ; Jurisdiction; Original Inventor ; Parties ; 
 
 Prior Judgment; Repeal; Suit; Supplemental 
 
 Bills.) 
 
 BOND. 
 (See Contract; Defense; Injunction.) 
 
 BOOKS. 
 
 Compelling production of . Finch u. Rikeman, 2 Blatch. 301; 
 
 Turrell v. Spaeth, 8 Off. Gaz. 986. 
 Of parties as evidence. Stanley v. Whipple, 2 McLean, 35; 2 
 
 Robb, 1. 
 Of science to aid the court. Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank, 4 
 
 Wash. 9; 1 Robb, 303. 
 
 (See Master.) 
 
 BREACH. 
 (See Contract.) 
 
 BURDEN OF PROOF. 
 
 Generally. Buck v. Cobb, 9 Law Rep. 545. 
 
 Of infringement. Francis v. Mellor, 5 Fisher, 153; 1 Off. Gaz. 
 
 48; Fuller v. Yentzer, 4 Otto, 288; 11 Off. Gaz. 551. 
 Of old machine. Ilayden v. Suffolk Manufacturing Co., 4 
 
 Fisher, 86. 
 Defendant must overcome plaintiff's prima facie case. Potter v. 
 
 Stevens, 2 Fisher, 163. 
 (See Infringement; Invention; Original In"\'entor ; 
 
 Prior Knowledge; Prior Use; Public Use; Want 
 
 OF Novelty.)
 
 168 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 CAVEATS. 
 
 Effect of. Bell v. Daniels, 1 Bond, 212; 1 Fisher, 372. 
 Purpose of. Phelps v. Brown, 4 Blatch. 362; 1 Fisher, 479. 
 (See Preliminary Injunctions.) 
 
 CERTAINTY. 
 
 (See Uncertainty.) 
 
 CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL. 
 (See Pleading.) 
 
 CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION. 
 (See Jurisdiction.) 
 
 CHAMPERTY. 
 
 (See Contract.) 
 
 CHANGES. 
 
 (See Construction of Patents; Patentability; Want 
 OF Novelty.) 
 
 CHARGE. 
 (See Damages; Jury.) 
 
 CHEAPNESS. 
 (See Want of Novelty.) 
 
 CIRCULAR. 
 
 (See Infringement.) 
 
 CIRCUMSTANCES OF PARTIES. 
 (See Preliminary Injunctions.)
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 159 
 
 CITATION. 
 (See Error.) 
 
 CITIZENSHIP. 
 (See Jurisdiction.) 
 
 CLAIMS. 
 
 (See CoNSTRucTiox of Patents; Dedication; Defense; 
 Infringement ; Patent ; Reissue ; Suits ; Uncer- 
 tainty; Want of Novelty.) 
 
 CLEARNESS. 
 
 (See Construction of Patents; Defective Specifica- 
 tion; Foreign Patents; Inventor; Pleading; Pub- 
 ucations; Uncertainty.) 
 
 COLLUSION. 
 (See Preliminary Injunctions.) 
 
 COLORABLE ALTERATIONS. 
 (See Infringement.) 
 
 COMBINATIONS. 
 
 Claims for. Forbush v. Cook, 2 Fisher, 688. 
 
 New combinations generally. Merrill v. Yeoraans, 4 Otto, 568; 
 11 Off. Gaz. 970. 
 
 New combination of old devices not entitled to equivalents. 
 Yuengling v. Johnson, 1 Hughes, 607. 
 
 New combinations of old parts. Hale v. Stimpson, 2 Fisher, 
 565. 
 
 Of old elements. Hamilton r. Ives, 6 Fisher, 244. 
 
 Of old elements with new results distinguished from aggrega- 
 tion. Hailes y. Van Wormer, 7 Blatch. 443; Williams w, 
 Rome, Watertown, and Ogdensburg Railroad, 15 Off. Gaz. 
 653.
 
 160 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Combination is an entirety. Williams v. Rome, Watertown, 
 
 and Ogdensburg Railroad, 15 Off. Gaz. 653. 
 Machines are generally combinations. Waterbury Brass Co. v. 
 
 Miller, 9 Blatch. 77; 5 Fisher, 48. 
 A part not new can only be claimed in combination. McCor- 
 
 mick V. Many, 6 McLean, 539. 
 What are patentable. Reckendorfer v. Faber, 2 Otto, 347; 10 
 
 Off. Gaz. 71; Rees v. Gould, 2 Off. Gaz. 624. 
 Two kinds of patentable combinations. Lee v. Blandy, 1 Bond, 
 
 361; 2 Fisher, 89. 
 Rules applicable to. Cahill v. Brown, 15 Off. Gaz. 697. 
 (See Abandonment; Constuuction of Patents; Infringe- 
 ment; Inventor; Patent; Patentability; Reissue.) 
 
 COMMISSIONER. 
 
 " Acting commissioner." Woodworth v. Hall, 1 W. & M. 248; 
 2 Robb, 495. 
 
 Acting commissioner, chief clerk as. Validity of patents granted. 
 Woodworth v. Hall, 1 W. & M. 389; 2 Robb, 517. 
 
 Acting commissioner, patents signed by. Smith v. Mercer, 5 
 Penn. L. J. 529; 4 West. L. J. 49. 
 
 Action of, is prima facie evidence for or against. Yuengling v. 
 Johnson, 1 Hughes, 607. 
 
 Action of Board of Commissioners, not conclusive. Wilson v. 
 Rousseau, 4 How. 646; 2 Robb, 373. 
 
 His allovvance of patent is only prima facie right. Recken- 
 dorfer V. Faber, 2 Otto, 347; 10 Off. Gaz. 71. 
 
 Authority by special act to extend a patent. Gibson v. Harris, 
 1 Blatch. 167; Jordan v. Dobson, 2 Abbott, 398; 7 Phila. 
 533 ; 4 Fisher, 232. 
 
 Court will not compel him to issue a patent. Hull v. Commis- 
 sioner of Patents, 8 Off. Gaz. 46. 
 
 Decisions in interfei-ences. Bain v. Morse, 6 West. L. J. 372. 
 
 Weight of his decisions. French v. Rogers, 1 Fisher, 133; Prov- 
 idence Rubber Co, v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788. 
 
 Discretion of. Henry v. Providence Tool Co., 14 Off. Gaz. 855. 
 
 Not disqualified from taking a patent after office expires. Foote 
 V. Frost, 14 Off. Gaz. 860.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 161 
 
 Duties of examiners in chief. Hull v. Commissioner of Patents, 
 
 7 Oif. Gaz. 559. 
 Jurisdiction of. Colt v. Young, 2 Blatch. 471 ; Gear v. Gros- 
 
 venor, 1 Holmes, 215; 6 Fisher, 314; 3 Off. Gaz. 380. 
 Power, generally. Atlantic Giant Powder Works v. California 
 
 Powder Works, 8 Otto, 12G; 15 Off. Gaz. 289; Hull v. 
 
 Commissioner of Patents, 7 Off. Gaz. 559, 
 Powers generally. United States v. Thacher, 7 Off. Gaz. 603. 
 Proceedings in granting reissue. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite 
 
 Co. V. Wetherbee, 3 Cliff. 555; 3 Fisher, 87. 
 Province of. Conklin v. Stafford, 5 Off. Gaz. 235. 
 Action in reissue not conclusive. Seymour v. Osborne, 3 Fisher, 
 
 555. 
 Mandamus, interfering patents. United States v. Thacher, 7 
 
 Off. Gaz. 603. 
 Authority to reissue in two patents, discretion. Goodyear v. 
 
 Wait, 5 Blatch. 468; 3 Fisher, 242. 
 Commissioner is presumed to do his duty in reissuing. Miller 
 
 and Peters Manufacturing Co. v. Du Brul, 12 Off. Gaz. 
 
 351. 
 Commissioner's action on reissue is not re-examinable unless on 
 
 its face an exceeding his authority. Milligan and Higgins 
 
 Glue Co. V. Upton, 6 Off. Gaz. 837; Seymour v. Osborne, 
 
 11 Wall. 516; Tucker v. Tucker Manufacturing Co., 10 
 
 Off. Gaz. 464. 
 Commissioner has authority to reissue during extension. Wil- 
 son V. Rousseau, 4 How. 646; 2 Robb, 373. 
 (See Abandonment; Appeal; Costs; Interference; Man- 
 damus; Patent Office; Reissue.) 
 
 COMMON LAW. 
 (See Costs ; Inventor ; Patent.) 
 
 COMMON SENSE. 
 (See Patentability.) 
 
 COMPANY. 
 
 (See Assignment.) 
 
 11
 
 162 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 COMPENSATION. 
 
 (See Damages.) 
 
 COMPETENCY. 
 
 (See Experts.) 
 
 COMPLETE. 
 (See Invention; Want of Novelty.) 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 (See Infringement.) 
 
 COMPOUND. 
 
 (See Infringement; Invention; Reissue; Uncertainty.) 
 
 CONCEALMENT. 
 (See Preliminary Injunctions; Uncertainty.) 
 
 CONCEPTION. 
 
 (See Invention ; Original Inventor.) 
 
 CONDITIONS. 
 (See Contract; Waiver.) 
 
 CONJECTURE. 
 (See Damages.) 
 
 CONSENT. 
 
 (See Abandonment ; Dedication; Foreign Patents; Non- 
 suit; Public Use; Reissue.) 
 
 CONSEQUENTIAL. 
 
 (See Damages.)
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 163 
 
 CONSIDERATION. 
 (See Assignment; Contract; License; Note; Pleading.) 
 
 CONSPIRACY. 
 
 (See Injunction.) 
 
 CONSTRUCTION OF PATENTS. 
 
 Is for the court. Davoll v. Brown, 1 W. & M. ,53; 2 Robb, 30-3; 
 Emerson o. Hogg, 2 Blatcli. 1; Jackson i\ Allen, 120 Mass. 
 64; Johnson v. Root, 1 Fisher, 351; Mabie v. Haskell, 2 
 Cliff. 507; Parker v. Hulme, 1 Fisher, 44; Poppenhusen v. 
 New York Gutta-percha Comb Co., 2 Fisher, 62; Serrell v. 
 Collins, 4 Blatch. 61; 1 Fisher, 289; &c. 
 
 Liberally construed. Francis v. Mellor, 5 Fisher, 153; 1 Oil'. 
 Gaz. 48; Goodyear i'. Berry, 2 Bond, 189; 3 Fisher, 439; 
 Jones V. Merrill, 8 Off. Gaz. 401; Mann o. Bayliss, 10 Off. 
 Gaz. 78y; Parker v. Stiles, 5 McLean, 44; Pottery. Hol- 
 land, 4 Blatch. 238; 1 Fisher, 382; Schillinger v. Gunther, 
 14 Blatch. 152; U Off. Gaz. 831; Sickels c. Gloucester 
 Manufacturing Co., 1 Fisher, 222; Smith v. Elliott, 9 
 Blatch. 400; 5 Fisher, 315; 1 Off. Gaz. 331; Smith v. 
 O'Connor, 2 Sawyer, 461; 6 Fisher, 409; 4 Off. Gaz. 633; 
 Turrill v. Michigan Southern and Northern Indiana Rail- 
 road, 1 Wall. 491; Union Paper Bag Machine Co. v. Nixon, 
 9 Off. Gaz. 091 ; AVaterbury Brass Co. v. New York and 
 Brooklyn Brass Co., 3 Fisher, 43; &c. 
 
 Strict construction. Trader v. Messmore, 7 Off. Gaz. 385. 
 
 Limited by state of the art. Blaisdell c. Tufts, 15 Off. Gaz. 
 881 ; Burden o. Corning, 2 Fisher, 477 ; Clark v. Kennedy 
 Manufacturing Co., 14 Blatch. 79; 11 Off. Gaz. 67: Clark 
 V. Scott, 9 Blatch. 301 ; 5 Fisher, 245; 2 Off. Gaz. 4; Pike v. 
 Providence and Worcester Railroad, 1 Holmes, 445; 6 Off. 
 Gaz. 575; Pitts v. Wemple, 1 Bissell, 87; 2 Fisher, 10. 
 
 Patents are not monopolies. Parker v. Stiles, 5 McLean, 44; 
 Seymour i'. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516; Singer v. Walniesley, 
 1 Fisher, 558; Turrill v. Michigan Southern and Northern 
 Indiana Railroad, 1 Wall. 491.
 
 164 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Relation of inventor to the public. Allen v. Hunter, 6 McLean, 
 303; Attorney-General v. Runiford Chemical Works, 9 Off. 
 Gaz. 10G2. 
 
 Theory of patentee is of no account. Foss v. Herbert, 1 Bissell, 
 121; 2 Fisher, 31. 
 
 Gradual growth of inventions. Chicago and Northwestern 
 Railroad v. Sayles, 7 Otto, 554; 15 Off. Gaz. 243. 
 
 Presumption of law. Geier v. Goetinger, 7 Off. Gaz. 563. 
 
 Weight of prior decisions on the patent's construction. Good- 
 year V. Berry, 2 Bond, 189; 3 Fisher, 439; Many v. Sizer, 
 
 1 Fisher, 31; Turrill r. Illinois Centi-al Railroad, 3 Bissell, 
 66; 3 Fisher, 330. 
 
 Technical terms. Estabrook v. Dunbar, 10 Oft'. Gaz. 909 ; 
 Rubber Coated Harness Trimming Co. v. Welling, 7 Otto, 
 7; 13 Off. Gaz. 727. 
 
 Drawings and specification together. Hoggy. Emerson, 6 How. 
 437; 2 Robb, 655; Hogg v. Emerson, 11 How. 587. 
 
 Whole taken together. Sarven v. Hall, 11 Blatch. 295; 6 Fisher, 
 495; 4 Off. Gaz. 666. 
 
 Claims must be regarded distinct from specification. Merrill v. 
 Yeomans, 4 Otto, 568; 11 Off. Gaz. 970. 
 
 Specification is addressed to those skilled in the art. Tilghman 
 V. Mitchell, 9 Blatch. 1; 4 Fisher, 599; W^oodward v. Mor- 
 rison, 1 Holmes, 124; 5 Fisher, 357; 2 Off. Gaz. 120. 
 
 Construed for the benefit of the inventor. W^oodman v. Stimp- 
 son, 3 Fisher, 98. 
 
 Fair interpretation of the words. Welling v. Rubber Coated 
 Harness Trimming Co., 7 Off. Gaz. 606. 
 
 Must be according to the language. Keystone Bridge Co. v. 
 Phoenix Iron Co., 5 Otto, 274; 12 Off. Gaz. 980. 
 
 Must be according to the claims. Dennis v. Cross, 3 Bissell, 
 389; 6 Fisher, 138; Kidd v. Spence, 4 Fisher, 37; Meissner 
 V. Devoe Manufacturing Co., 9 Blatch. 363; 5 Fisher, 285; 
 
 2 Off. Gaz. 545 ; Rich v. Close, 8 Blatch. 41 ; 4 Fisher, 279. 
 Court construes patents, not corrects them. Kittle ii. Merriam, 
 
 2 Curtis, 475. 
 Joint patent modified by prior patent of one joint inventor. 
 Hopkins and Dickinson Manufacturing Co. v. Parker and 
 Whipple Manufacturing Co., 14 Blatch. 396; 14 Off. Gaz. 3.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 1G5 
 
 Patentee's construction. Trader v. ^Messmore, 7 Off. Gaz. 385. 
 Patents which interfere are confined to particular shape. Rapp 
 
 V. Bard, 1 Fisher, 190. 
 Construction by Supreme Court. Turrill v. Illinois Centi-al Rail- 
 road, 5 Bissell, 344. 
 Construction of claims. Francis v. Mellor, 5 Fisher, 153; 1 
 
 Off. Gaz. 48; Carlton v. Bokee, 17 Wall. 4G3. 
 Claims for whole and its parts. Foss v. Herbert, 1 Bissell, 121 ; 
 
 2 Fisher, 31. 
 Word " combination." Burden v. Corning, 2 Fisher, 477. 
 Claims for results. Henderson v. Cleveland Co-operative Stove 
 
 Co., 12 Off. Gaz. 4. 
 Claims for art and manufacture. Merrill v» Yeomans, 1 Holmes, 
 
 331; 5 Off. Gaz. 267. 
 Fairly and liberally, and not subjected to over-nice or critical 
 
 refinements. Ames ik Howard, 1 Sumn. 482; 1 Robb, 
 
 689. 
 So that patent will be coextensive with invention. Andrews v. 
 
 Carman, 13 Blatch. 307; 11 Off. Gaz. 1011. 
 Liberal, because to promote science and the useful arts. Blan- 
 
 chard v. Sprague, 3 Sumn. 535; 1 Robb, 734. 
 Changes slight or elementary. Cornell v. American Bush Co., 
 
 7 Bis.sell, 346; 11 Off. Gaz. 331. 
 Is for court where no parol evidence to explain is offered. 
 
 Davoll V. Brown, 1 W. & M. 53; 2 Robb, 303. 
 Liberal, but patent must be clear. Davoll v. Brown, 1 W. & M. 
 
 53; 2 Robb, 303. 
 
 (See Assignment; Infringement.) 
 
 CONTEMPT. 
 (See Injunction.) 
 
 CONTRACT. 
 
 Accord and satisfaction. Burdell v. Denig, 2 Fisher, 588. 
 
 To assign, annulled, no action lies. Newbury v. Bay State 
 
 Screw Co., 7 Allen, 257. 
 Bond, void patent, no consideration. Brown v. Wright, 17 
 
 Ark. 9.
 
 iC6 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Breach by suing out injunction. Sailings v. Goodyear, 36 Mich. 
 
 31e3. 
 
 Broken by plaintiff, effect on his rights. Stanley Rule and 
 
 Level Co. v. Bailey, U Blatch. 510. 
 Cancelling. Brooks v. Stolley, 3 McLean, 523; 2 Robb, 281. 
 Void for champerty and maintenance. Gregerson v. Imlay, 4 
 
 Blatch. 503. 
 Conditions precedent. Young v. Hunter, 6 N. Y. 203. 
 Implied covenants. Wilson v. Marlow, 66 111. 385. 
 Covenant, consideration, defenses allowed, &c. Wilder v. 
 
 Adams, 2 W. & M. 329. 
 Unreasonable delay to elect. McBurney v. Goodyear, 11 Cush. 
 
 (Mass.) 569. 
 As a defense. Kittle v. Frost, 9 Blatch. 214; 5 Fisher, 213. 
 Estoppel to dispute validity. Brooks v. Morehouse, 13 Off. Gaz. 
 
 499. 
 Parol evidence to vary. Hollida v. Hunt, 70 111. 109; Pierce v. 
 
 Wilson, 34 Ala. 596. 
 Executed by attorney. Bellas v. Hays, 5 S. & R. (Penn.) 427. 
 Partly executed. Gibson v. Barnard, 1 Blatch. 388. 
 Effect of agreement on extension. Union Manufacturing Co. v. 
 
 Lounsbury, 42 Barb. (N. Y.) 125. 
 Interpretation. Baker v. Mason, 3 R. I. 45; Goodyear Dental 
 
 Vulcanite Co. v. Gardner, 3 Cliff. 408; 4 Fisher, 224; 
 
 Wetherill v. Passaic Zinc Co., 6 Fisher, 50; 9 Phila. 385; 
 
 2 Off. Gaz. 471. 
 As a license. Whitney v. Graves, 13 Off. Gaz. 455. 
 Licensee's stamping goods acknowledges they were made under 
 
 the contract. Jones v. Van Kirk, 2 Fisher, 586. 
 Misrepresentations, means of knowledge. Hess v. Young, 59 
 
 Ind. 379. 
 Money paid under. Case v. Morey, 1 N. H. 347. 
 Papers, whether they amount to contract. Burdell v. Denig, 
 
 2 Otto, 716. 
 Parol. Davy v. Morgan, 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 218. 
 Parol. Statute of Frauds. Jenkins v. Abbotts, 54 N. H. 447; 
 
 Marston v. Swett, 4 Hun (N. Y.), 153; 6 Th. & C. (iST. Y.) 
 
 534 ; Sherjnan v. Champlain Transportation Co., 31 Vt. 162. 
 Parol negotiations not included. Edwards v. Richards, Wright 
 
 (Ohio), 596.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 167 
 
 Parol warranty. Galpin v. Atwater, 29 Conn. 93; Joliffe v. 
 
 Collins, 21 Mo. 338. 
 To pay price. Avery v. Bushnell, 123 Mass. 349. 
 Specific performance. Ely v. McKay, 12 Allen (Mass.), 323; 
 
 Nesmith v. Calvert, 1 W. & M. 31; 2 Robb, 311. 
 Plaintiff must show performance on his side. McDougall v. 
 
 Fogg, 3 Bosw. (N. Y.) 387. 
 Plaintiff bound by. Troy Iron and Nail Factory v. Corning, 1 
 
 Blatch. 467; 6 Fisher, 87. 
 Reassignment, time to try and to elect. Young v. Hunter, 6 
 
 N. Y. 203. 
 Before reissue applies after. McBurney v. Goodyear, 11 Cush. 
 
 (Mass.) 569. 
 Remedy, if no infringement and no violation of contract, no 
 * remedy. Western Telegraph Co. v. Magnetic Telegraph 
 
 Co., 21 How. 4.56. 
 Representations, performance. Serviss v. Stockstill, 30 Ohio 
 
 St. 418. 
 Rescission. Elkins v. Kenyon, 34 Wise. 93 ; Gatling v. Newell, 
 
 9 Ind. 572. 
 Rescission, false representations. Hall v. Orvis, 35 Iowa, 366; 
 
 Newell V. Gatling, 7 Ind. 147. 
 Rescission, fraud. Warren v. Cole, 15 Mich. 265. 
 Rescission in equity, fraud, laches. Pierce v. AVilson, 34 Ala. 596. 
 Rescission, worthless patent no ground for. West v. Morrison, 
 
 2 Bibb (Ky.), 376. 
 Right to rescind. Hartshorn v. Day, 19 How. 211. 
 Restraint of trade. Billings v. Ames, 32 Mo. 265 ; Kinsman v. 
 
 Parkhurst, 18 How. 289; Morse Twist Drill, &c. Co. v. 
 
 Morse, 103 Mass. 73. 
 Royalty, violation of contract for. Union Manufacturing Co. v. 
 
 Lounsbury, 41 N. Y. 363. 
 Royalty, void patent no consideration for. Jenkins v. Abbotts, 
 
 54 N. H. 447. 
 Worthless note, total failure of consideration. Joliffe v. Collins, 
 
 21 Mo. 338. 
 (See Admissions; Assignment; Corporation; Damages; 
 
 Employe ; Estoppel ; Evidence ; Infringement ; In- 
 junction; Jurisdiction; Patent; Sale; Statutes.)
 
 168 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 COXTROVERSY. 
 (See Preliminary Injunctions.) 
 
 CONVENIENCE. 
 
 (See Want of Novelty.) 
 
 COPARTNERS. 
 (See Corporation ; Joint Owners.) 
 
 COPIES. 
 (See Assignment ; Costs ; Evidence ; Patent.) 
 
 CORPORATION. 
 
 Contracts by chairman. Lightner v. Brooks, 2 Cliff. 287. 
 County Commissioners are quasi corporation, and not liable for 
 
 infringement. Jacobs v. Commissioners of Hamilton Co., 
 
 1 Bond, 500; 4 Fisher, 81. 
 Corporation sued as copartners, may be amended. Needham v. 
 
 Washburn, 7 Off. Gaz. 649. 
 Domicile not necessarily stated. National Hay Rake Co. v. 
 
 Harbert, 2 Weekly Notes, 100. 
 Existence of. Dorsey Revolving Harvester Rake Co. v. Marsh, 
 
 6 Fisher, 387. 
 Foreign corporations. Grover and Baker Sewing Machine Co. 
 
 V. Sloat, 2 Fisher, 112. 
 Foreign corporation found in State. Williams v. Empire Trans- 
 portation Co., 14 Off. Gaz. 523. 
 Indiana law of foreign corporations. Walter A. Wood, &c. Co. 
 
 V. CaldweU, 54 Ind. 270. 
 Liability in tort. Jacobs v. Commissioners of Hamilton County, 
 
 1 Bond, .500; 4 Fisher, 81; Lightner v. Brooks, 2 Cliff. 
 
 287. 
 As plaintiff. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Wetherbee, 2 
 
 cuff. 555; 3 Fisher, 87.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 169 
 
 Purchase of patent before issue by corporation is protected by 
 statute. McClurg v. Kingsland, 1 IIow. 202; 2 llobb, 
 105. 
 
 Receiver of, has exclusive right to use its patents. Woven 
 Tape Skirt Co., In re, 12 Ilun (N. Y.), 111. 
 
 Where sued. Jones v. O.sgood, 6 Blatch. 435; 3 Fisher, 591. 
 (See Infrixgemext; Jurisdictiox; New Trial.) 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 Allowance of. Ilovey v. Stevens, 3 W. & M. 17; 2 Robb, 567; 
 
 Peek V. Frame, 5 Fisher, 211. 
 When not allowed. Emerson v. Peddie, 8 Blatch. 446; 4 Fisher, 
 
 493. 
 What are allowable. Hussey v. Bradley, 5 Blatch. 210. 
 None by common law. Kneass i'. Schuylkill Bank, 4 Wash. 
 
 lOG. 
 Right to, discretion of court. Hathaway v. Roach, 2 W. & M. 
 
 63. 
 Taxation of. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Osgood, 13 
 
 Off. Gaz. 325. 
 Taxation, copies of patents. Hathaway v. Roach, 2 W. & M. 
 
 63 ; Woodruff v. Barney, 1 Bond, 528; 2 Fisher, 244. 
 Taxation, docket fees. Doughty v. West, Bradley, and Gary 
 
 Manufacturing Co., 4 Fisher, 318. 
 Taxation, marshal's fees for witnesses out of State. Parker i\ 
 
 Bigler, 1 Fisher, 28-5. 
 Taxation, Ma.ster's and Commissioner's fees. Doughty c. We.st, 
 
 Bradley, and Gary Manufacturing Co., 4 Fisher, 518. 
 Taxation, models. Hathaway v. Roach, 2 W. & M. 63; Parker 
 
 V. Bigler, 1 Fisher, 285; Woodruff c. Barney, 1 Bond, 528; 
 
 2 Fisher, 241. 
 Taxation, printing testimony not included. Spaulding v. 
 
 Tucker, Deady, 649 ; 4 Fisher, 633. 
 Taxation, witness fees during few days' suspension. Hathaway 
 
 V. Roach, 2 W. & M. 63. 
 Taxation, witness's travel, out of State. Spaulding r. Tucker, 
 
 Deady, 649; 4 Fisher, 633; Woodruff v. Barney, 1 Bond, 
 
 528; 2 Fisher, 244. 
 
 (See Appeal; Disclaimer.)
 
 170 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 COUNSEL FEES. 
 (See Damages.) 
 
 COURT. 
 
 Circuit Courts form one system, and are bound by previous de- 
 cisions. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Willis, 7 Off. 
 Gaz. 41. 
 
 Deference due decisions of Supreme Court. Kirby v. Dodge 
 and Stevenson Manufacturing Co. , 10 Blatch. 307 ; 6 Fisher, 
 156; 3 Off. Gaz. 181. 
 
 Judgment of Supreme Court on facts. Seymour v. Marsh, 6 
 Fisher, 115; 9 Phila. 380; 2 Off. Gaz. 675. 
 
 Opinions of other courts. Union Paper Bag Machine Co. v. 
 Nixon, 6 Fisher, 402; 4 Off. Gaz. 31. 
 
 Powers of Circuit Courts. Goodyear v. Providence Rubber Co., 
 2 Cliff. 351 ; 2 Fisher, 499. 
 
 No power to regulate plaintiff's proceedings in other courts. 
 Rumfoi-d Chemical Works o. Ilecker, 11 Blatch. 552; 5 Off. 
 Gaz. 644. 
 
 Rulings by, before defendant's case is in. McMahon v. Tyng, 
 14 Allen (Mass.), 167. 
 
 When State court is proper tribunal to sue in. Aiken u. Man- 
 chester Print Works, 2 Cliff. 435. 
 
 (See Construction of Patents; D.a.mages; Decree; Ju- 
 risdiction; New Trial; Preliminary Injunction; 
 Reissue; Repeal; Suits; Uncertainty; Usefulness.) 
 
 COURT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 (See Jurisdiction.) 
 
 CREDIBILITY. 
 
 (See Evidence; Witnesses.) 
 
 CREDITORS, 
 (See Assignment.) 
 
 CROSS-BILL. 
 What constitutes. Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 
 807.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 171 
 
 Without notice, must be stricken from the files. "Webster 
 
 Loom Co. V. Short, 10 Off. Gaz. 1019. 
 New parties by. Brandon Manufacturing Co. v. Prime, 14 
 
 Blatch. 371. 
 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 Actual damages are profits defendant has made. Conover v. 
 
 Rapp, 4 Fisher, 57. 
 Actual damages, license fee. Seymour- v. McCormick, 16 How. 
 
 480. 
 Actual damages are defendant's profits, presumption of law. 
 
 Wilbur v. Beecher, 2 Blatch. 132. 
 Cannot exceed ad (Jamnuni of writ. Winans v. Xew York and 
 
 Harlem Railroad, 4 Fisher, 1. 
 Agreed on by contract. Oliver v. Morgan, 10 Hei&k. (Tenn.) 
 
 332. 
 In contract. Weed v. Draper, 99 Mass. 53; Weed r. Draper, 
 
 104 Mass. 28. 
 Counsel fees. Bancroft v. Acton, 7 Blatch. 505; Teese v. Hunt- 
 ingdon, 23 How. 2; Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall. 429; 1 
 
 Robb, 28. 
 Counsel fees allowed by jury. Boston Manufacturing Co. v. 
 
 Fiske, 2 Mason, 119; 1 Robb, 320; Stimpson v. Railroad, 
 
 1 Wall. Jr. 164; 2 Robb, 593. 
 Depreciation in price. Billings i'. Ames, 32 Mo. 265. 
 Excessive. Alden v. Dewey, 1 Story, 336; 2 Robb, 17; Allen v. 
 
 Blunt, 2 \\. & M. 121; 2 Robb, 530; Russell v. Place, 9 
 
 Blatch. 173; 5 Fi.sher, 134; Whitney v. Emmett, 1 Bald. 
 
 303; 1 Robb, 567. 
 Mast be plainly and largely beyond injury inflicted to be ex- 
 cessive. Aiken v. Bemis, 3 W. & M. 348; 2 Robb, 644. " 
 Improvement by defendant charged and allowed. American 
 
 Nicolson Pavement Co. v. City of Elizabeth, 6 Oft". Gaz. 764. 
 Profits by improvements. City of Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., 
 
 7 Otto, 126. 
 Value of improvements. Garretson v. Clark, 14 Off. Gaz. 485. 
 Defendant is entitled to the profits of his improvement. Mason 
 
 V. Graham, 23 WaU. 261; 7 Off. Gaz. 833.
 
 172 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Increasing. Bell v. McCulloch, 1 Fisher, 380; Guyon v. Serrell, 
 
 1 Blatch. 244. 
 
 For aggravated conduct of defendant. Peek v. Frame, 9 Blatch. 
 
 194; 5 Fisher, 113. 
 Amount of compensation for infringement by government. 
 
 Hubbell V. United States, 5 N. & H. 1. 
 Without injunction. Vaughan v. East Tennessee, Virginia, 
 
 and Georgia Raih-oad, 11 Off. Gaz. 789. 
 Interest not given. Silsby v. Foote, 20 How. 378. 
 Jury may give interest if they choose. Tatham v. Leroy, 2 
 
 Blatch. 474. 
 Not infringing wantonly, is free from paying interest. Mowry 
 
 V. Whitney, 14 Wall. 620; 5 Fisher, 494; 1 Off. Gaz. 492. 
 Unwitting infringement, only compensatory damages. Parker 
 
 V. Corbin, 4 McLean, 462; 2 Robb, 716. 
 Liberal. Foote v. Silsby, 1 Blatch. 445. 
 To get at damages jury must find facts. Goodyear v. Bishop, 
 
 2 Fisher, 154. 
 
 Interest on profits not generally given. Littlefield v. Perry, 21 
 
 Wall. 205; 7 Off. Gaz, 964. 
 Reserved up to time of conveyance. Boomer v. United Power 
 
 Pre.ss Co., 13 Blatch. 107. 
 Courts may increase to any amount not more than treble. 
 
 Carew v. Boston Elastic Fabrics Co. , 3 Cliff. 356 ; 5 Fisher, 90. 
 Profits overestimated by Master. Cawood Patent, 4 Otto, 695. 
 Damages must be found from evidence, not conjectui-e. Carter 
 
 V. Baker, 1 Sawyer, 512; 4 Fisher, 404; Philp v. Nock, 
 
 17 Wall. 460. 
 
 In finding profits, saving by use is not balanced against de- 
 fendant's losses. Conoverr. Mers, 11 Blatch. 197; 6 Fisher, 
 506. 
 
 Under contract, profits not really made. Kinsman v. Parkhurst, 
 
 18 How. 289. 
 
 Before recording patent. Emerson v. Ilogg, 2 Blatch. 1. 
 Decree for damages of license fee gives right to use for life of 
 
 patent. Emerson v. Sinim, 6 Fisher, 281 ; 3 Off. Gaz. 293; 
 
 Sickels V. Borden, 3 Blatch. 535. 
 Recoupment. Gold v. Ives, 29 Conn. 119; Green v. Willard, 
 
 Improved Barrel Co., 1 Mo. App. 202.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 173 
 
 Unliquiflated. Green v. Willard Improved Barrel Co., 1 Mo. 
 
 App. 202. 
 Given contrary to charge. Johnson v. Root, 2 Cliff. 108; 2 
 
 Fisher, 291. 
 Postponed till after acconnting. Magic Ruffle Co. i;. Elm City 
 
 Co., 13 Blatch. 151; 8 Off. Gaz. 773. 
 Trebling is in discretion of the court, aggravated conduct. 
 
 ^Merchant ;;. Lewis, 1 Bond, 172. 
 Treble by sect. U of 1836. Motte v. Bennett, 2 Fisher, 642. 
 Master's construction of patent too narrow. Ruggles r. Eddy, 12 
 
 Off. Gaz. 716. 
 Reasons for trebling. Schwarzel v. Holmshade, 2 Bond, 29; 
 
 3 Fisher, 116. 
 Not trebled when reasonable contest. Smith v. O'Connor, 2 
 
 Sawyer, 461; 6 Fisher, 469; 4 Off. Gaz. 633. 
 What actual damages are. Stephens v. Felt, 2 Blatch. 37. 
 Measure of. 
 
 For improvement is not whole machine. Bedford v. Hunt, 
 
 1 Mason, 302; 1 Robb, 148. 
 Established royalty. Birdsall v. Coolidge, 3 Otto, d4; 10 
 
 Off. Gaz. 748. 
 Saving by use of patented machine. Black v. Thorne, 12 
 
 Blatch. 20; 7 Off. Gaz. 176. 
 Gains and profits the proper measure. Brady v. Atlantic 
 
 Works, 15 Off. Gaz. 965. 
 Difference in value between new and old. Brodie v. Ophir 
 Silver, &c. Co., 4 Fisher, 137 ; Earl v. Sawyer, 4 Mason, 
 1 ; 1 Robb, 490. 
 Immediate, not remote and consequential. Buerk v. Im- 
 
 hauser, 14 Blatch. 19; 10 Off. Gaz. 907. 
 Profits defendant made or ought, not what plaintiff might. 
 
 Burdell v. Denig, 2 Otto, 716. 
 Price he has sold machine, no criterion. Campbell v. Bar- 
 clay, 5 Bissell, 179. 
 Plaintiff's loss not defendant's gains. Cowing v. Rumsey, 
 
 8 Blatch. 36 ; 4 Fisher, 275. 
 Whatever profits or benefit defendant has received. Cox v. 
 
 Griggs, 2 Fisher, 174. 
 Profits defendant made, not might have. Dean v. Mason, 20 
 How. 198.
 
 174 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Measure of — continued. 
 
 License fee. Goodyear v. Bishop, 2 Fisher, 154. 
 
 Patents are so varied there can be no fixed rule. Graham 
 
 V. Mason, 1 Hohnes, 88; 5 Fisher, 290; 1 Off. Gaz. 
 
 609. 
 Sound disci-etion of tlie jury. Hawes v. Gage, 5 Off. Gaz. 
 
 494. 
 Law gives defendant's profits if they can be ascertained. 
 
 Hays V. Sulsor, 1 Bond, 279 ; 1 Fisher, 532. 
 Price paid for license may be considered by jury. Hogg v. 
 
 Emerson, 11 How. 587. 
 Deduction of proper part of general expenses of general 
 
 dealer. Hitchcock v. Tremaine, 9 Blatch. 385 ; 5 
 
 Fisher, 310. 
 Different rules in law and equity. Hudson v. Draper, 4 
 
 Fisher, 256 ; Vaughan v. Central Pacific Railroad, 4 
 
 Sawyer, 280. 
 Only profits made by plaintiff's improvement. Ingels v. 
 
 Mast, 6 Fisher, 415; 7 Off. Gaz. 836. 
 Lie in discretion of jury. Judson v. Lloore, 1 Bond, 285; 
 
 1 Fisher, 544. 
 Compensation for injury sustained. Kneass v. Schuylkill 
 
 Bank, 4 Wash. 9; 1 Robb, 303; Magic Ruffle Co. v. 
 
 Douglass, 2 Fisher, 330; Many v. Sizer, 1 Fisher, 
 
 17. 
 Cases classified as having different measures. Livingston 
 
 V. Jones, 3 Wall. Jr. 330; 2 Fisher, 207. 
 Profits of defendant may be more or less than damage to 
 
 plaintiff. Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co., 14 Blatch. 
 
 109; 11 Off. Gaz. 501. 
 Liability for royalty only for number actually sold. Marsh 
 
 V. Dodge, 4 Hun (N. Y.), 278; 6 Th. & C. (N. Y.) 
 
 508. 
 Compensatory where careless infringer made no profits. 
 
 Marsh V. Seymour, 7 Otto, 348 ; 13 Off. Gaz. 723. 
 Actual damages and profits he would have made. Mc- 
 
 Cormick v. Seymour, 2 Blatch. 240. 
 Depends upon whether plaintiff sells rights or not. Mc» 
 
 Cormick v. Seymour, 3 Blatch. 209.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 175 
 
 Measure of — continued. 
 
 Patented and unpatented articles should not be lumped 
 
 together. Mulford v. Pearce, 14 Blatch. 141 ; 11 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 741. 
 Rule at law is license fee, if there is one. Packet Co. v. 
 
 Sickles, 19 Wall. 611. 
 One-fourth of profits in special case. Parker v. Bamker, 
 
 6 McLean, 031. 
 Expenses of litigation not generally included. Parker v. 
 
 Huhne, 1 Fisher, 44 ; AVarren v. Cole, 1.5 Mich. 265. 
 Profits of defendant and loss of plaintiff. Philp v. Nock, 
 
 17 Wall. 460. 
 Expense of suit included. Pierson v. Eagle Screw Co., 3 
 
 Story, 402; 2 Robb, 268. 
 Actual not vindictive. Pitts v. Hall, 2 Blatch. 229. 
 Special or general under the statute. Runiford Chemical 
 
 Works V. Hecker, 11 Off. Gaz. 330. 
 Saving by use, over any thing else he could adopt. Serrell 
 
 V. Collins, 1 Fisher, 289. 
 License fee, may be small to introduce. Sickles v. Borden, 
 
 3 Blatch. 535. 
 Full amount of profits, no fixed royalties. Spaulding v. 
 
 Page, 1 Sawyer, 702; 4 Fisher, 641. 
 Damages without license fee, only for time of infringement, 
 
 not of patent. Suffolk Manufacturing Co. v. Hayden, 
 
 3 Wall. 315. 
 Saving by use of plaintiff's process. Tilghman v. Mitchell, 
 
 9 Blatch. 1 ; 4 Fisher, 599. 
 Expenses and charges allowed in finding net profits. Troy 
 
 Iron and Nail Factory v. Corning, 6 Blatch. 328 ; 3 
 
 Fisher, 497. 
 Apportionment of profits. Whitney v. Mowry, 4 Fisher, 
 
 141 ; Whitney v. Mowry, 4 Fisher, 207. 
 Actual. Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall. 478; 1 Robb, 40. 
 Profits and damages, salaries of defendants not profits. 
 
 Williams v. Leonard, 9 Blatch. 476; 5 Fisher, 381. 
 Amount of profits is the practice in damages. Wintermute 
 
 V. Redington, 1 Fisher, 239. 
 If profits e ceed license fee, not limited to it. Wooster v. 
 
 Tayl , 14 Blatch. 403.
 
 176 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Nominal. Burdell v. Denig, 2 Fisher, 588 ; Gold v. Ives, 29 
 Conn. 119 ; Gould's Manufacturing Co. v. Cowing, 14 
 Blatch. 315; 12 Off. Gaz. 9i2 ; Ingersoll v. Benham, 
 14 Blatch. 541 ; 13 Off. Gaz. 966. 
 When plaintiff fails to prove damages in accounting. 
 Gould's JNIanufacturing Co. v. Cowing, 12 Blatch. 243 ; 
 8 Off. Gaz. 277. 
 Article not marked patented and no notice proved. Mc- 
 Comb I'. Brodie, 1 Woods, 153 ; 5 Fisher, 384 ; 2 Off. 
 Gaz. 117. 
 Where profit by plaintiff's improvement cannot be shown. 
 Schillinger v. Gunther, 14 Off. Gaz. 733. 
 Reference to Master, extent of infringement is question. Tur- 
 
 rill V. Illinois Central Railroad, 5 Bissell, 344. 
 Under the statute. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Van 
 
 Antwerp, 9 Off. Gaz. 497. 
 Use by defendant is evidence of utility, and subjects to damages. 
 
 Simpson v. Mad River Railroad, 6 McLean, 603. 
 (See Inventor; New Trial; Preliminary Injunctions.) 
 
 DATE. 
 (See Application ; Assignment.) 
 
 DEATH. 
 (See Partners.) 
 
 DECEIT. 
 (See Fraud.) 
 
 DECISION. 
 
 (See Commissioner; Construction of Patents; Court; 
 Issue; Jury; Preliminary Injunctions ; Prior Judg- 
 ment; Reissue.) 
 
 DECLARATION. 
 
 Amending by adding new count. Peck v. Bacon, 18 Conn. 377. 
 Bad, leave to amend. Peterson v. Wooden, 3 McLean, 248; 2 
 Robb, 116.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 177 
 
 What it must contain. Cutting v. Myers, 4 Wash. 220; 1 Robb, 
 159. 
 
 Taken as admitted where no plea is filed. Parker v. Bamker, 
 6 McLean, 631. 
 
 Time stated in, binds plaintiff if material. Eastman v. Bod- 
 fish, 1 Story, 528; 2 Robb, 72. 
 
 Must show title. Gray v. James, Peters, C. C. 476 ; 1 Robb, 
 140. 
 
 (See Assignment; Evidence; Patent.) 
 
 DECREE. 
 
 Amendments after final decree. Tremolo Patent, 23 How. 518. 
 Of affirmance vacated, &c. Gardner v. Goodyear Dental Vul- 
 canite Co., 6 Fisher, 329; 3 Off. Gaz. 295. 
 Court will not proceed where final decree cannot be reached. 
 
 Florence Sewing Machine Co. v. Singer Sewing Machine 
 
 Co., 8 Blatch. 113; 4 Fisher, 329. 
 If granted, must be according to prayer of the bill. Livingston 
 
 V. Woodworth, 15 How. 546. 
 Interlocutory, practice. Carew v. Boston Elastic Fabrics Co., 
 
 3 Cliff. 356 ; 5 Fisher, 90. 
 Pro coiifesso, motion to file answer. Dean v. Mason, 20 How. 
 
 198. 
 Pro confesso, motion to set aside. Andrews v. Denslow, 14 
 
 Blatch. 182. 
 Pro confesso, not a decree establishing validity in usual sense. 
 
 Russell V. Lathrop, 122 Mass. 300. 
 Interlocutory decree is not res adjudicatce. Rumford Chemical 
 
 Works V. Hecker, 10 Off. Gaz. 289. 
 (See Answer; Damages; Ixju>-ction; I^Iaster's Report; 
 Ple.\ding.) 
 
 DEDICATION. 
 
 Must be to public. Goodyear v. Hills, 3 Fisher, 134; Good- 
 year V. AVait, 5 Blatch. 468; 3 Fisher, 242. 
 
 A right of the invent-or. Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. 322. 
 
 Not claiming in a later but different application, is not. Suf- 
 folk Manufacturing Co. v. Ilayden, 3 Wall. 315. 
 12
 
 178 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Cannot be revoked. Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall. 478; 1 
 
 Robb, 40. 
 On sale, with consent of patentee. Melius v. Silsbee, 4 Mason, 
 
 108; 1 Eobb, 506. 
 
 DEDUCTION. 
 (See Damages.) 
 
 DEED. 
 See Assignment; Estoppel.) 
 
 DEFECTIVE SPECIFICATION. 
 
 Admissible under general issue. Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank, 4 
 
 Wash. 9; 1 Robb, 303. 
 Cured by verdict. Gray v. James, Peters C. C. 476; 1 Robb, 
 
 140.' 
 What defects are fatal. Union Paper Bag Machine Co. v. 
 
 Nixon, 6 Fisher, 402; 4 Off. Gaz. 31. 
 Every definition presupposes some knowledge. Smith v. O'Con- 
 nor, 2 Sawyer, 461 ; 6 Fisher, 469; 4 Off. Gaz. 633. 
 Clear enough to construct a machine by those familiar with 
 
 them. Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 McLean, 250; 2 Robb, 
 
 118. 
 Question of intent to deceive. Gray v. James, Peters, C. C. 
 
 394 ; 1 Robb, 120. 
 Not saying what prior machine improved on is. Isaacs v. Cooper, 
 
 4 Wash. 259 ; 1 Robb, 332. 
 Good description of tiling, but not of how it is made. Magic 
 
 Ruffle Co. V. Douglass, 2 Fisher, 330. 
 Sufficiency of specification. Brooks v. Bicknell, 4 McLean, 70. 
 Sufficiency is determined by taking whole together. Howes v. 
 
 Nute, 4 Fisher, 263. 
 May be defective on its face, or as shown by outside facts. 
 
 Head v. Stevens, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 411. 
 (See Abandonment ; Assignment; Demurrer; Invention; 
 Reissue.)
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 179 
 
 DEFENDANTS. 
 
 District where defendant lives in civil suits. Chaffee v. Hay- 
 ward, 20 How. 208. 
 Privity of. Wells v. Jacques, 5 Off. Gaz. 364. 
 
 DEFENSE. 
 
 Set up in the answer. Brown v. Hall, 6 Blatch. 401; 3 Fisher, 
 531; Comstock v. Sandusky Seat Co., 3 Off. Gaz. 23; 
 Doubleday v. Sherman, 3 Fisher, 369 ; Eureka Co. ik 
 Bailey Washing Machine Co., 11 Wall. 488; Grover and 
 Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Sloat, 2 Fisher, 112; Guidet 
 V. Barber, 5 Off. Gaz. 149; Jordan v. Dobson, 2 Abbott, 
 398; 7 rhila. 533; 4 Fisher, 232. 
 
 Must be set up in answer to be availed of. Wallace i\ Holmes, 
 9 Blatch. 65; 5 Fisher, 37 ; 1 Off. Gaz. 117; Wonson v. 
 Peterson, 13 Off. Gaz. 549. 
 
 Must be set up in answer, propriety of the rule. Russell and 
 Erwin Manufacturing Co. v. Mallory, 10 Blatch. 140; 5 
 Fisher, 632 ; 2 Off. Gaz. 495. 
 
 Court cannot notice defenses not set up. Bates v. Coe, 8 Otto, 
 31 ; 15 Off. Gaz. 337 ; United States and Foreign Salaman- 
 der Felting Co. v. Haven, 3 Dillon, 131 ; 9 Off. Gaz. 253. 
 
 Notice of defense. American Hide and Leather Splitting, &c. 
 Co. V. American Tool Co., 1 Holmes, 503; 4 Fisher, 284; 
 American Saddle Co. v. Hogg,. 1 Holmes, 133 ; 5 Fisher, 
 353 ; 2 Off. Gaz. 59 ; Burden v. Corning, 2 Fisher, 477. 
 
 Notice required. Railroad Co. v. Dubois, 12 Wall. 47. 
 
 Thirty days' notice. McComb v. Brodie, 1 Woods, 153; 5 
 Fisher, 384; 2 Off. Gaz. 117. 
 
 Notice of special defense under general issue. Kelleher v. Dar- 
 ling, 14 Off. Gaz. 673; Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. 322; 
 Keplinger v. De Young, 10 Wheat. 358; 1 Robb, 459. 
 
 Offer to pay. Berger v. Peterson, 78 HI. 633. 
 
 What the special defenses under general issue are. Bates v. 
 Coe, 8 Otto, 31; 15 Off. Gaz. 337. 
 
 Under genoral issue, what payment is made in. Loudon v. 
 Birt, 4 Ind. 566.
 
 180 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Sufficiency of notice. Westlake i'. Cartter, 4 Off. Gaz. 636. 
 Must be proved. Collender v. Came, 10 Off. Gaz. 467; Cook 
 
 V. Howard, 4 Fisher, 269; Jenkins v. Walker, 1 Holmes, 
 
 120; 5 Fisher, 347; 1 Off. Gaz. 359. 
 Counter-claims, invalidity. Marston v. Swett, 4 Hun (N. Y.), 
 
 153; 6Th. &C. (N. Y.) 534. 
 Invalidity as defense to bond. Nye v. Raymond, 16 111. 153. 
 License as a defense. Day v. New England Car Spring Co., 3 
 
 Blatch. 154. 
 Purchase from license. Howe v. Newton, 2 Fisher, 531. 
 Waiver. Foy v. Hunter, 9 Off. Gaz. 542. 
 (See Contract, Injunction; License; Note; Pleading; 
 
 Preliminary Injunctions; Publications; Reissue; 
 
 Usefulness; Validity.) 
 
 DEFINITIONS. 
 
 " Art." Smith v. Downing, 1 Fisher, 64. 
 
 "Cuspadore." IngersoU v. Turner, 12 Off. Gaz. 189; Burden 
 
 V. Corning, 2 Fisher, 477; Cahoon v. Ring, 1 Cliff. 592; 1 
 
 Fisher, 397. 
 " Equivalents." Tyler v. Boston, 7 Wall. 327. 
 *' Identity." Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall. 478; 1 Robb, 40. 
 " Machine." Wintermute v. Redington, 1 Fisher, 239. 
 "Not known or used before his application." Pennock v. 
 
 Dialogue, 2 Peters, 1 ; 1 Robb, 542. 
 " Novelty." McCormick v. Seymour, 3 Blatch. 209. 
 " Principle." Leroy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156. 
 " Profits." Mers v. Conover, 11 Off. Gaz. 1111. 
 "Public use and sale." Ryan v. Goodwin, 3 Sumn. 514; 1 
 
 Robb, 725. 
 "Simultaneously." King v. Werner, 12 Blatch. 270; 8 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 361. 
 " Substantially the same." Adams v. Edwards, 1 Fisher, 1. 
 "Substantially as described." Seymour v. Osborne, 3 Fisher, 
 
 555. 
 "Useful." Bedford v. Hunt, 1 Mason, 302; 1 Robb, 148; 
 
 Lowell i;. Lewis, 1 IMason, 182; 1 Robb, 131; Whitney v. 
 
 Emmett, 1 Bald. 303 ; 1 Robb, 567. 
 (See Assignment; Defective Specification; Usefulness.)
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 181 
 
 DEGREE. 
 
 (See Usefulness.) 
 
 DELAY. 
 
 Lack of patent lawyers as reason in a suit. Goodyear v. Hulli- 
 
 hen, 2 Hughes, 492 ; 3 Fisher, 251. 
 (See Abaxdonmejjt ; Contract ; Disclaimer ; Invention ; 
 Suits.) 
 
 DEMURRER. 
 
 Anthony v. Carroll, 9 Off. Gaz. 199. 
 
 In general. Wilder v. McCormick, 2 Blatch. 31. 
 
 To whole bill and to p9,rt. Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Cali- 
 fornia Powder AVorks, 8 Otto, 126; 15 OS. Gaz. 289. 
 
 To pleas. Birdsell v. Perego, 5 Blatch. 251. 
 
 Technical defects may be amended. Wilder v. McCormick, 2 
 Blatch. 31. 
 
 DENIAL. 
 
 (See Infringement.) 
 
 DEPOSITIONS. 
 
 Taking. Evans v. Hettick, 3 Wash. 408; 1 Robb, 166. 
 (See Evidence.) 
 
 DESCRIPTION. 
 
 (See Defective Specification; Invention; Inventor: 
 
 Reissue.) 
 
 DESIGNS. 
 
 Machine to print designs is not a design. Clark v. Bousfield, 
 10 Wall. 133. 
 
 DILIGENCE. 
 
 Reasonable. Ayling v. Hull, 2 Cliif. 494. 
 
 (See New Trial; Original Inventor.) 
 
 DISADVANTAGES. 
 (See Inventor.)
 
 182 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 DISCLAIMER. 
 
 Admissibility of, in evidence. Silsby v. Foote, 14 How. 218. 
 After suit brought, no costs. Guyon v. Serrell, 1 Blatch. 244; 
 
 Hall V. Wiles, 2 Blatch. 194. 
 Costs not allowed, when. Myers v. Dunbar, 8 Blatch. 446; 4 
 
 Fisher, 493. 
 Delay. Burden o. Corning, 2 Fisher, 477. 
 Delay, unreasonable. Burdett v. Estey, 15 Oif. Gaz. 877; 
 
 Hotclikiss y. Oliver, 5 Denio (N. Y.) 314; Lippincott v. 
 
 Kelly, 1 AVest. L. J. 513; Seymour v. McCormick, 19 How. 
 
 96; Smith v. Nichols, 21 Wall. 112. 
 Must be without delay. Silsby v. Foote, 20 How. 378. 
 During suit. Taylor v. Archer, 8 Blatch. 315; 4 Fisher, 
 
 449. 
 When to be filed. Tuck y. Bramhill, 6 Blatch. 95; 3 Fisher, 
 
 400. 
 By mistake. Amei-ican Shoe Tip Co. v. National Shoe Tip 
 
 Protector Co., 11 Off. Gaz. 740; Hussey v. Bradley, 5 
 
 Blatch. 134; 2 Fisher, 362. 
 Unreasonable negligence. Hall v. Wiles, 2 Blatch. 194. 
 What are proper. Tuck u. Bramhill, 6 Blatch. 95; 3 Fisher, 
 
 400. 
 Express exclusion of one ingredient. Byam v. Farr, 1 Curtis, 
 
 260. 
 When recorded, becomes part of original specification. Dunbar 
 
 V. Myers, 4 Otto, 187; 11 Off. Gaz. 35. 
 Proposition to file disclaimer, treated as if akeady filed. Aiken 
 
 V. Dolan, 3 Fisher, 197. 
 Must be properly proved before admitted into evidence. Foote 
 
 V. Silsby, 1 Blatch. 445. 
 By owner of sectional interest. Potter v. Holland, 4 Blatch. 
 
 206 ; 1 Fisher, 327. 
 Must be filed before suit is brought. Reed v. Cutter, 1 Story, 
 
 590; 2Robb, 81. 
 Disclaimers do not change the statements of patents, only 
 
 remove part. Schillinger v. Gunther, 14 Off. Gaz. 
 
 713. 
 
 (See Injunction; Reissue.)
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 183 
 
 DISCOVERY. 
 
 When penalty would fall on defendant. Finch v. Rikeman, 2 
 Blatch. 301. 
 (See Abandonment; Bill; Invention; Jukisdiction.) 
 
 DISCRETION. 
 
 (See Appeal; Commissioner; Costs; Preliminary Injunc- 
 tions.) 
 
 DISSOLUTION. 
 (See Injunction.) 
 
 DISTRICT ATTORNEY. 
 (See Repeal.) 
 
 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 (See ALandamus.) 
 
 DISTRICT JUDGE. 
 (See Injunction.) 
 
 DOCKET FEES. 
 (See Costs.) 
 
 DOMICILE. 
 (See Corporation; Jurisdiction.) 
 
 DOUBT. 
 (See Injunction; Preliminary Injunctions ; Public Use.) 
 
 DRAWINGS. 
 
 May correct error in text. Kittle v. Merriam, 2 Curtis, 475. 
 Effect in limiting a patent. Hamilton v. Ives, 6 Fisher, 244; 3 
 Off. Gaz. 30.
 
 184 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 New drawings may be added by reissue. Hank's Case, 2 A. L. 
 
 T. (U. S.) R. 129. 
 Are part of specification. Earl v. Sawyer, 4 Mason, 1; 1 Robb, 
 
 490; Hamilton v. Ives, 6 Fisher, 244. 
 Not referred to in specification. Washburn v. Gould, 3 Story, 
 
 122; 2 Robb, 206. 
 
 (See Construction of Patents; Reissue.) 
 
 DUPLICITY. 
 (See Pleading.) 
 
 DURATION. ■ 
 
 (See Patent.) 
 
 EFFECT. 
 (See Patentability; Release.) 
 
 ELECTION. 
 See Contract.) 
 
 EMPLOYE. 
 
 Improvement in model by. Berdan Fire-arms Manufacturing 
 
 Co. V. Remington, 3 Off. Gaz. 688. 
 Making experiments, rule of law. Chabot v. American Button, 
 
 &c. Co., 6 Fisher, 71. 
 Contract to serve and invent. Continental Windmill Co. v. 
 
 Empire Windmill Co., 8 Blatch. 295; 4 Fisher, 428; Mc- 
 
 Clurg V. Kingsland, 1 How. 202; 2 Robb, 105; Wilkins v. 
 
 Spofford, 13 Off. Gaz. 675. 
 Using his own time in making experiments. Lockwood v. 
 
 Lockwood, 33 Iowa, 198. 
 At expense of employer in making experiments. Slemmer's 
 
 Appeal, 58 Penn. St. 155. 
 Mere fact of employment not enough to cover inventions not in 
 
 particular line. Whiting v. Graves, 13 Off. Gaz. 455. 
 (See Infringement; Prior Use.)
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 185 
 
 ENGLISH COMMON PLEAS. 
 
 Effect of judgment of. Bishchoff v. Wethered, 9 Wall. 812. 
 
 EQUITY. 
 
 Adequate remedy at law. Perry v. Corning, 7 Blatch. 195. 
 
 Fraud of plaintiff prevents relief. Hoffheims v. Brandt, 3 
 Fisher, 218. 
 
 Jurisdiction is as full as at law. Hoffheims v. Brandt, 3 Fisher, 
 218. 
 
 Jurisdiction, suit at law not a prerequisite. Motte v. Bennett, 
 2 Fisher, 642. 
 
 Relief, mistake. Black v. Stone, 33 Ala. 327. 
 
 Equitable and legal titles. Continental Windmill Co. v. Em- 
 pire AVindmill Co., 8 Blatch. 295; 4 Fisher, 428; Day v. 
 Candee, 3 Fisher, 9; Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 205; 7 
 Off. Gaz. 904; Whiting v. Graves, 13 Off. Gaz. 455. 
 
 Equitable title gives right to sue. Iluggles v. Eddy, 10 Blatch. 
 52; 5 Fisher, 581. 
 
 (See Assignee; Forfeiture; Jurisdiction; Jury; Suits.) 
 
 EQUIVALENT. 
 
 (See Combination; Defective Specification; Definition; 
 Infringement; Injunction; Inventor; Patent.) 
 
 ERROR. 
 
 Writ. Bellas v. Hays, 5 S. & R. (Penn.) 427. 
 
 Writ allowed in chambers. Foote v. Silsby, 1 Blatch. 542. 
 
 Writ lies against decision on agreed statement of facts. Stimp- 
 
 son V. Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad, 10 How. 329. 
 Writ, conclusions of fact not open. Stevens v. Pierpont, 42 
 
 Conn. 360. 
 Writ after mandate brings up only what was done since. Sizer 
 
 V. Many, 16 How. 98. 
 Assignment of error in Iowa. Hawes v. Twogood, 12 Iowa, 
 
 582.
 
 186 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Too broad assignment of error. Marsh v. Seymour, 7 Otto, 348; 
 
 13 Off. Gaz. 723. 
 Error in citation. Chaffee v. Hayward, 20 How. 208. 
 (See Preliminary Injunctions.) 
 
 ESTOPPEL. 
 
 By contract. Eureka Co. v. Bailey Washing Machine Co., 11 
 
 Wall. 488; Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co., 13 Blatch. 
 
 151; 8 Off. Gaz. 773; Read v. Bowman, 2 Wall. 591. 
 By contract in restraint of trade. Parkhurst v. Kinsman, 1 
 
 Blatch. 488. 
 Not estopped by contract to pay royalty. Hawks v. Swett, 4 
 
 Hun (N. Y.) 146; 6 Th. & C. (N. Y.) 529. 
 By covenant. Heilner v. Batten, 27 Penn. St. 517; Stanley 
 
 Rule and Level Co. v. Bailey, 14 Blatch. 510. 
 By covenant not to infringe. Sargent v. Earned, 2 Curtis, 340. 
 By deed and in pais. Jackson v. Allen, 120 Mass. 64. 
 By judgment, certainty of record required. Russell v. Place, 
 
 4 Otto, 606; 12 Off. Gaz. 53. 
 By judgment, former suit on want of novelty. Dubois v. Phila- 
 delphia and Wilmington Railroad, 5 Fisher, 208. 
 By license. Jones v. Buruham, 67 Me. 93; Rich v. Atwater, 16 
 
 Conn. 409. 
 By note. Rose v. Hurley, 39 Ind. 77. 
 On nudum pactum, generally. Saxton v. Dodge, 57 Barb. 
 
 (N. Y.) 84. 
 Of purchaser, by resale. Thomas v. Quintard, 5 Duer (N. Y.) 
 
 80. 
 Silence as an estoppel. Railroad Co. v. Dubois, 12 Wall. 47. 
 By sales under agreement. Kinsman v. Parkhurst, 18 How. 289. 
 By previous statement of date of invention. Union Paper Bag 
 
 Machine Co. v. Crane, 1 Holmes, 429; 6 Off. Gaz. 801. 
 (See Contract; Invention.) 
 
 EVASION. 
 
 (See Preliminary Injunctions.) 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 Actions at law as evidence. Doughty v. West, 2 Fisher, 553.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 187 
 
 Addilioiial. Biidsell v. Ilagerstown Agricultural, &c. Co., 6 
 
 Off. Gaz. 604. 
 Admissibility of. CoUender v. Griffeth, 11 Blatch. 212; 3 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 689; Corning v. Burden, 15 How. 252; Foote v. 
 
 Silsby, 1 Blatch. 445; Havves v. Twogood, 12 Iowa, 582; 
 
 Johnson v. Willimantic Linen Co., 33 Conn. 436; Marsh v. 
 
 Dodge, 4 Ilun (N. Y.) 278; 6 Th. & C. (N. Y.) 568; Rich 
 
 V. Atwater, 16 Conn. 409; Vale v. Butler, 111 Mass. 55. 
 Admission of. Earl v. Dexter, 1 Holmes, 412; 6 Off. Gaz. 729; 
 
 Philadelphia and Ti-enton Railroad v. Stimpson, 14 Peters, 
 
 448; 2Robb, 46. 
 Agreement of counsel to admit. American Saddle Co. v. Hogg, 
 
 2 Off. Gaz. 595. 
 Agreement of counsel about evidence may not be accepted by 
 
 court. Heilner v. Battin, 27 Penn. St. 517. 
 Not in answer. Geier v. Goetinzer, 7 Off. Gaz. 563. 
 State of art. Westlake v. Cartter, 6 Fisher, 519 ; 4 Off. Gaz. 636. 
 State of art under general issue. Brown v. Piper, 1 Otto, 37 ; 10 
 
 Off. Gaz. 417. 
 In chancery. Berger v. Patterson, 78 111. 633. 
 Contract as evidence. Russell v. Lathrop, 117 Ma.ss. 424. 
 Certified copies of patents. Woodworth v. Hall, 1 W. & M. 
 
 248; 2Robb, 495. 
 Credibility. Cahill v. Brown, 15 Off. Gaz. 697. 
 Cumulative. Blandy v. Griffeth, 6 Fisher, 434. 
 Declarations by patentee. Evans v. Hettick, 7 Wheat. 453; 1 
 
 Robb, 417. 
 Depositions de bene esse. Pettibone v. Deringer, 4 Wash. 215; 1 
 
 Robb, 152. 
 Exclusion of evidence. Davis v. Gray, 17 Ohio St. 330; Mc- 
 
 Dougall V. Fogg, 2 Bosw. (N. Y.), 387; Osborn v. Herron, 
 
 28 Ga. 313; Tucker v. Spaulding, 13 Wall. 453; 5 Fisher, 
 
 297; 1 Off. Gaz. 144. 
 Execution of instrument, proved by attestation. Sherman v. 
 
 Champlain Transportation Co., 31 Vt. 162. 
 Irregularly put on record. Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Peters, 1 ; 
 
 1 Robb, 542. 
 Knowledge of witness better than opinion of others. Gutta- 
 percha Co. V. Goodyear Rubber Co., 3 Sawyer, 542.
 
 188 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Memory as evidence of anticipation. Hayden v. Suffolk Manu- 
 facturing Co., 4 Fisher, 86. 
 
 New evidence. Foote v. Silsby, 1 Blatch. 545. 
 
 Notice, special in equity. Doughty v. West, 2 Fisher, 553. 
 
 Notice, sufficiency of. McDowell v. Meredith, 4 Whart. 
 (Penn.) 311. 
 
 Notice, want of, cannot be cured by amending answer. Roberts 
 V. Buck, 1 Holmes, 224; 6 Fisher, 325; 3 Off. Gaz. 269. 
 
 Note, best evidence. Dunbar v. Marden, 13 N. H. 311. 
 
 Omission of. Aiken v. Bemis, 3 W. & M. 348; 2 Robb, 644. 
 
 Positive and negative. Sayles v. Chicago and Northwestern 
 Railroad, 3 Bissell, 52; 4 Fisher, 586. 
 
 Rebutting. Day v. New England Car Spring Co., 3 Blatch. 154; 
 Evans v Hettick, 7 Wheat. 453; 1 Robb, 417. 
 
 Rejected applications of third party. Union Paper Bag Machine 
 Co. V. Pultz and Walkley Co., 15 Off. Gaz. 423. 
 
 Statutes under general issue. Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank, 4 
 Wash. 9 ; 1 Robb, 303. 
 
 Under general issue. Bartholomew v. Sawyer, 4 Blatch. 347; 
 1 Fisher, 516. 
 
 Incompetency, evidence of prior use to prove right in defend- 
 ant's assignor. Baldwin v. Sibley, 1 Cliff. 150. 
 
 (See Abandoned Experiments; Abandonment; Assign- 
 ment; Books; Contract; Damages; Defective 
 Specification; Disclaimer; Experts; Foreign Pat- 
 ents; Fraud; Infringement; Injunction; Inventor; 
 Jurisdiction; License; Master; New Trial; Note; 
 Original Inventor; Patent; Preliminary Injunc- 
 tions; Rehearing; Reissue; Usefulness; Want of 
 Novelty.) 
 
 EXAMINERS. 
 
 Appointment of special. Squire, John L., In re, 12 Off. Gaz. 
 1025. 
 
 (See Commissioner; Costs; Patent.) 
 
 EXCEPTIONS. 
 
 Bill of , is part of record. Chaffee v. Boston Belting Co., 22 
 How. 217.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 189 
 
 General, to charge of court. Serviss v. Stockstill, 30 Ohio St. 
 
 418; Stimpson v. West Chester Raih-oad, 4 How. 380; 2 
 
 Robb, 335. 
 To court's rulings. Ca,se v. Brown, 2 Wall. 320; Wheeler v. 
 
 Billings, 38 N. Y. 263. 
 Rule of court not made part of bill of exceptions, effect. Packet 
 
 Co. V. Sickles, 19 Wall. 611. 
 
 (See Excess; Master's Report; New Trial.) 
 
 EXECUTION. 
 
 Seizure of materials on. Powder Co. v. Burkhardt, 7 Otto, 110. 
 (See Contract.) 
 
 EXECUTOR. 
 
 (See Administrators; Assignee; Assignment; Parties; 
 Patent; Reissue; Title.) 
 
 EX PARTE. 
 
 (See Application.) 
 
 EXPERIMENTS. 
 
 (See Abandoned Experiments; Abandonment; Employe; 
 Public Use; Statute.) 
 
 EXPERTS. 
 
 Practical and theoretical mechanics are contemplated by patent 
 
 law. Allen v. Blunt, 3 Story, 742; 2 Robb, 288. 
 No doubt of their competency as witnesses. Barrett v. Hall, 1 
 
 Mason, 447; 1 Robb, 207. 
 Competency of particular expert. Bierce v. Stocking, 11 Gray 
 
 (Mass.) 174. 
 Expert testimony is proper but sometimes unnecessary. Bish- 
 
 choff V. Wethered, 9 Wall. 812. 
 Opinion of identity can be testified to by experts only. Cono- 
 
 ver V. Rapp, 4 Fitsher, 57.
 
 190 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 To explain terms used in the arts, &c., not to constriie written 
 instruments. Day v. Steltman, 1 Fisher, 487. 
 
 Persons acquainted with the particuhir art. Dixon v. Moyer, 4 
 AVash. 68; 1 Robb, 324. 
 
 Practical experiment is better than expert opinion. Hudson 
 V. Draper, 4 Fisher, 256. 
 
 In weighing expert's opinions, look at his ability, knowledge, 
 fairness, &c. Johnson v. Root, 1 Fisher, 351. 
 
 Ingenuity of, does not make a patent good. Kelleher v. Dar- 
 ling, 14 0ff. Gaz. 673. 
 
 Little confidence in opinions of experts and professors. Living- 
 ston V. Jones, 1 Fisher, 521. 
 
 Expert testimony is exception to law of evidence of opinion. 
 Many v. Sizer, 1 Fisher, 17. 
 
 Entitled to great respect when qualified and free from bias. 
 Morris v. Barrett, 1 Bond, 254; 1 Fisher, 461. 
 
 Opinion as to impracticability, of little weight compared to 
 actual use. Seymour r. Marsh, 6 Fisher, 115; 9 Phila. 
 380; 2 Off. Gaz. 675. 
 
 Mere opinion without facts, is unsatisfactory. United States 
 Annunciator Co. v. Sanderson, 3 Blatch. 184. 
 
 Agreement between experts for plaintiff and defendant. Web- 
 ster V. New Brunswick Carpet Co., 5 Off. Gaz. 522. 
 
 Sometimes unnecessary. Winans v. New York and Erie Rail- 
 road, 21 How. 88. 
 
 (See Rehearing.) 
 
 EXPIRATION OF PATENT. 
 (See Extensions; Patent; Reissue.) 
 
 EXTENSIONS. 
 
 To administrators. Washburn v. Gould, 3 Story, 122; 2 Robb, 
 
 206. 
 Administrator can sue assignees of patentee. Wilson v. Rousseau, 
 
 4 How. 646; 2 Robb, 373; Woodworth v. Cheever, 3 Story, 
 
 171; 2 Robb, 257; Woodworth v. Ilall, 1 W. & M. 248; 2 
 
 Robb, 495.
 
 SYNOPSIS OP LAW POINTS. 191 
 
 Applied for ninety days before expiration of patent. Johnson 
 
 V. McCulloch, 4 Fisher, 170. 
 Effect of assignment. Case v. Redfield, 4 McLean, 526; 2 Robb, 
 
 741; Day v. Candee, 3 Fisher, 9; Lowell Manufacturing 
 
 Co. V. Hatfield Carpet Co., 2 Fi-sher, 472. 
 By special act. Blancliard v. Ilaynes, 6 West. L. J. 82; Evans 
 
 V. Eaton, 3 Wheat. 454; 1 Robb, 243. 
 Beginning of. Jordan v. Dobson, 2 Abbott, 398; 7 Phila. 533; 
 
 4 Fisher, 232. 
 By Congress. Blanchard v. Beers, 2 Blatch. 411; Jordan i;. 
 
 Dobson, 2 Abbott, 398; 7 Phila. 533; 4 Fisher, 232. 
 By Congress does not prevent royalties. Union Manufacturing 
 
 Co. V. Lounsbury, 41 N. Y. 363. 
 False representations. Goodyear v. Providence Rubber Co., 2 
 
 Cliff. 351 ; 2 Fisher, 499. 
 Illegality of . Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 3 Fisher, 536; Brooks 
 
 V. Bicknell, 3 McLean, 250; 2 Robb, 118. 
 Object is to make fair profit. Aiken v. Dolan, 3 Fisher, 197. 
 Operates prospectively only. Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 
 
 539; Bloomer v. Stolly, 5 McLean, 158. 
 Extension to patentee after reissue to assignee, is good. Potter 
 
 V. Braunsdorf, 7 Blatch. 97. 
 Vests whole title without regard to where it was at re- 
 issue. Potter V. Empire Sewing Machine Co., 3 Fisher, 
 
 474. 
 Validity of. Colt v. Young, 2 Blatch. 471. 
 Strengthens presumption of novelty. Whitney i'. Mowry, 2 
 
 Bond, 45; 3 Fisher, 157. 
 Strengthens presumption of validity. McComb v. Ernest, 1 
 
 Woods, 195. 
 Time twenty-eight years in all, legality. Woodworth v. Ed- 
 wards, 3 W. & M. 120; 2 Robb, 610. 
 Use after. Farrington r. Water Commissioners, 4 Fisher, 216. 
 Renewal. Brooks v. Bicknell, 4 INIcLean, 70. 
 Is judicial act not impeached collaterally. American Wood 
 
 Paper Co. v. Glen Falls Paper Co., 8 Blatch. 513; 4 Fisher, 
 
 324. 
 (See Assignee; Assignment; Commissioner; Contract; 
 In.iunction ; License; Renewal; Repeal; Sale; Use.)
 
 192 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 FACT. 
 
 (See Abandonment; Assignment; Court; Damages; In- 
 junction ; Master's Report ; Preliminary Injunc- 
 tions ; Prior Knowledge; Uncertainty.) 
 
 FALSE REPRESENTATIONS. 
 (See Note ; Sale.) 
 
 FEES. 
 (See Costs ; Master.) 
 
 FINE. 
 (See Injunction.) 
 
 FIRST INVENTOR. 
 (See Inventor.) 
 
 FORECLOSURE. 
 (See Mortgage.) 
 
 FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. 
 (See Corporation.) 
 
 FOREIGN PATENTS. 
 
 Date of. French i\ Rogers, 1 Fisher, 133 ; Morse v. Bain, 9 
 West. L. J. 106. 
 
 English patent. Gatling v. Newell, 9 Ind. 572. 
 
 English patent surreptitiously obtained does not defeat in- 
 ventor's right here. Kendrick v. Emmons, 9 Off. Gaz. 
 201. 
 
 Expiration of. Badische Anilin, &c. v. Hamilton Manufactur- 
 ing Co., 13 Off. Gaz. 273; Henry v. Providence Tool Co., 
 14 Off. Gaz. 855 ; Smith v. Ely, 5 McLean, 76 ; Weston v. 
 White, 13 Blatch. 3G4; 9 Off. Gaz. 1196.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 193 
 
 Expiration before extension. Tilghman v. Mitchell, 9 Blatch. 
 
 18 ; 4 Fisher, 615. 
 Unsatisfactory evidence of. Putnam v. Hickey, 3 Bissell, 157 ; 
 
 5 Fisher, 334; 2 Off. Gaz. 225. 
 Must be clear and exact to anticipate. Cahill v. Brown, 15 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 697. 
 Free from interferences, patents held by aliens. Bland, ex parte, 
 
 15 Off. Gaz. 828. 
 By third person without consent of inventor. Goodyear Dental 
 
 Vulcanite Co. v. Willis, 7 Off. Gaz. 41. 
 Statute of 1861. Goff v. Stafford, 14 Off. Gaz. 748. 
 Time of. City of Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., 7 Otto, 126. 
 Translation of. White v. Allen, 2 Cliff. 224 ; 2 Fisher, 440. 
 Met by showing their worthlessness. Harwood v. Mill River 
 
 Woollen Manufacturing Co., 3 Fisher, 526. 
 (See Original In VENTOR ; Preliminary Injunctioxs ; Stat- 
 ute ; Want of Novelty.) 
 
 FORFEITURE. 
 
 Equity never enforces. Morse v. O'Reilly, 6 Penn. L. J. 501. 
 By laches. Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co., 14 Blatch. 109; 
 
 11 Off. Gaz. 501. 
 Of license. Woodworth v. Weed, 1 Blatch. 165. 
 Generally. Pitts v. Hall, 2 Blatch. 229. 
 
 (See Abandonment; Assignment; License.) 
 
 FORM. 
 
 When change of, is material. Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. 
 
 330. 
 Importance of. Bain v. Morse, 6 West. L. J. 372. 
 (See Infringement; Reissue.) 
 
 FRAUD. 
 
 Not admissible under defense of want of novelty. Agawam Co. 
 
 V. Jordan, 7 Wall. 583. 
 In obtaining special act, remedy. Gibson v. Gifford, 1 Blatch. 
 
 529. 
 
 13
 
 194 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Not open collaterally. Eureka Co. i'. Bailey Washing Machine 
 Co., 11 Wall. 488; Gear v. Grosvenor, 1 Holmes, 215; 6 
 Fisher, 314 ; 3 Off. Gaz. 380 ; Milligan and Higgins Glue 
 Co. V. Upton, 6 Off. Gaz. 837; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 
 Wall. 516 ; Whitney o. Mowry, 4 Fisher, 207. 
 
 Fraudulent misrepresentations in patent. Elm City Co. v. 
 Wooster, 6 Fisher, 452; 4 Off. Gaz. 83. 
 
 Hearsay evidence. Wilson v. Simpson, 9 How. 109. 
 
 Of government, limitations not accepted by patentee. Pike v. 
 Potter, 3 Fisher, 55. 
 
 Must be proved. Jordan v. Dobsou, 2 Abbott, 398; 7 Phila. 
 533; 4 Fisher, 232. 
 
 Tort for deceit, false representations. David v. Park, 103 Mass. 
 501. 
 (See Contract; Equity; Extension; License; Note; 
 Original Inventor; Pleading; Reissue; Sale; 
 Suits.) 
 
 FUNCTION. 
 (See Patentability.) 
 
 GAINS. 
 (See Damages.) 
 
 GENERAL ISSUE. 
 (See Defense; Evidence; Pleading.) 
 
 GOVERNMENT. 
 (See Damages; Fraud; Repeal.) 
 
 GUARDIANS. 
 (See Sale.) 
 
 HABENDUM CLAUSE. 
 (See Assignment.)
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 196 
 
 IDEA. 
 (See Patentability.) 
 
 IDENTITY. 
 (See JuKY.) 
 
 IGNORANCE. 
 
 (See UNCERTAINTY.) 
 
 IMPRACTICABILITY. 
 
 (See Patent.) 
 
 IMPROVEMENTS. 
 
 (See Damages; Injunction; Invention; Inventor; Pat- 
 ent ; Patentability.) 
 
 INADVERTENCE. 
 (See Reissue.) 
 
 INCAPACITY. 
 
 (See Reissue.) 
 
 INCOMPETENCY. 
 (See Evidence.) 
 
 INCOMPLETENESS. 
 (See Patentability.) 
 
 INDIANA LAW. 
 
 (See Corporation.) 
 
 INFRINGEMENT. 
 
 Acquiescence by plaintiff. Jordan v. Dobson, 2 Abbott, 398; 
 
 TPhila. 53:i; 4 Fisher, 2;i2. 
 Agents of corporations having nothing to do with its use, do not 
 
 infringe. Lightner r. Kimball, 1 Lowell, 211.
 
 196 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 By American boats on high seas. Gardiner v. Howe, 2 Cliff. 
 
 462. 
 Burden of proof. Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. 583; Bates 
 V. Coe, 8 Otto, 31; 15 Off. Gaz. 337; Goff v. Stafford, 14 
 Oft'. Gaz. 748; Graham v. Mason, 5 Fisher, 1; Hudson v. 
 Draper, 4 Fisher, 256; Parker v. Stiles, 5 McLean, 44. 
 Change of form. 
 
 May be of essence. Dennis v. Eddy, 4 Fisher, 423. 
 Mechanical equivalents. Gorham v. Mixter, 8 Penn. L. J. 
 539; Lowell v. Lewis, 1 Mason, 182; 1 Robb, 131; 
 Murphy v. Eastham, 1 Holmes, 113; 5 Fisher, 306; 2 
 Off. Gaz. 61; Murphy v. Kissling, 1 Holmes, 432; 7 
 Off. Gaz. 302 ; Sargent v. Earned, 2 Curtis, 340; 
 Tatham v. Leroy, 2 Blatch. 474; Taylor v. Garretson, 
 9 Blatch. 156; 5 Fisher, 116. 
 Inventive skill. Teese v. Phelps, 1 McAllister, 48. 
 When essential. Union Paper Bag, &c. Co. v. Murphy, 7 
 Otto, 120; 13 Off. Gaz. 366; Weston v. Nash, 1 Hohnes, 
 488; 7 Off. Gaz. 1096. 
 Shape. Wilbur v. Beecher, 2 Blatch. 132. 
 "Characteristic resemblance." Union Paper Collar Co. v. 
 
 White, 9 Off. Gaz. 698. 
 Choice of remedies. Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co., 13 
 
 Blatch. 151 ; 8 Off. Gaz. 773. 
 Circular of defendant as evidence. Masury v. Tiemann, 8 
 
 Blatch. 426 ; 4 Fisher, 524. 
 Claim, narrow, lieckendorfer v. Faber, 12 Blatch. 68; 5 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 697. 
 Colorable alterations. Adams v. Jones, 1 Fisher, 527; American 
 Diamond Rock Boring Co. v. Sullivan Company, 14 Blatch. 
 119; American Nicolson Pavement Co. v. City of Eliza- 
 beth, 4 Fisher, 189; Byara v. Eddy, 2 Blatch. 521; Odiorne 
 V. Denney, 13 Off. Gaz. 965; Odiorne v. Winkley, 2 Gall. 
 51; 1 Robb, 52; Pitts v. Wemple, 1 Bissell, 87; 2 Fisher, 
 10; Vaughan v. Central Pacific Railroad, 4 Sawyer, 280; 
 Whitely v. Kirby, 11 Wall. 678. 
 Combination. 
 
 Change of position of parts, better work. Adams v. Joliet 
 Manufacturing Co., 12 Off. Gaz. 93.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 197 
 
 Combination — continued. 
 
 Not using the essential part. Adams and Westlake Manu- 
 facturing Co. V. St. Louis Wire Goods Co., 12 Off. Gaz. 
 
 940. 
 Additions. American Nicolson Pavement Co. v. City of 
 
 Elizabeth, 6 Fi-sher, 424; 3 Off. Gaz. 522. 
 Of two, not infringed by one and an outside element. Amer- 
 ican Nicolson Pavement Co. v. Hatch, 3 Fisher, 432. 
 Substantial equivalents. American Whip Co. v. Lombard, 
 
 14 Off. Gaz. 900. 
 Mere substitute. Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Mowbray, 
 
 12 Off. Gaz. iii., Oct. 2. 
 Substituting another well-known part. Bailey Washing, 
 
 &c. Co. V. Lincoln, 4 Fisher, 379. 
 Change by mere mechanical skill. Blake r. Eagle Works 
 
 Manufacturing Co., 3 Bissell, 77; 4 Fisher, .591. 
 Mechanical equivalents. Blake f. Robertson, 11 Blatch. 237. 
 Change for purpose of evasion. Blake v. Robertson, 4 Otto, 
 
 726; 11 Off. Gaz. 877. 
 Used for only one of its many purposes. Blanchard v. 
 
 Beers, 2 Hlatch, 411. 
 Sale of materials. Bridge v. Brown, 3 Off. Gaz. 121. 
 Immaterial change of location of a part. Brown v. Selby, 
 
 23 AVall. 181 ; G Off. Gaz. 392. 
 Cannot claim alternative combinations where parts will not 
 
 work. Brown v. Whittemore, 5 Fisher, 524; 2 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 248. 
 Same test of infringement as of novelty. Buck v. Her- 
 
 mance, 1 Klatch. 398. 
 Colorable difference or slight variation. Byam v. Eddy, 2 
 
 Blatch. 521. 
 Test of similarity. Cahoon v. Ring, 1 Cliff. 592 ; 1 Fisher, 397. 
 Change of form of parts. Conover v. Roach, 4 Fisher, 12. 
 Of three not infringed by two. Coolidge v. McCone, 2 
 
 Sawyer, 571; 5 Off. Gaz. 4o8; Crompton v. Belknap 
 
 Mills, 3 Fisher, 536. 
 Omission of one ingredient. Densmore v. Schofield, 4 
 
 Fisher, 148. 
 Must use entire combination. Dunbar v. Myers, 4 Otto, 
 
 187; 11 Off. Gaz. 35.
 
 198 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Combination — continued. 
 
 Mechanical substitute. Fislier v. Craig, 3 Sawyer, 69. 
 
 Different function of a part. Forsyth v. Clapp, 1 Holmes, 
 278; 6 Fisher, 528; 4 Off. Gaz. 527. 
 
 Mere substitutes. Fuller v. Yentzer, 4 Otto, 288 ; 11 Off. 
 Gaz. 551; Fuller v. Yentzer, 4 Otto, 299; 11 Off. Gaz. 
 597. 
 
 Equivalents. Fuzzard Wadding Manufacturing Co. v. 
 ■Dickinson, 6 Blatch. 80; 3 Fisher, 289 ; Gould v. Rees, 
 15 Wall. 187; 2 Off. Gaz. 624; King v. Louisville 
 Cement Co., 6 Fisher, 334; 4 Off. Gaz. 181; McCor- 
 mick V. Many, 6 McLean, 539; Storrs v. Howe, 10 
 Off. Gaz. 420; Turrell v. Spaeth, 14 Off. Gaz. 377; 
 Woolcocks V. Many, 9 Blatch. 139; 5 Fisher, 72. 
 
 How infringed. Foster v. Moore, 1 Curtis, 279 ; Singer v. 
 Walmesley, 1 Fisher, 558. 
 
 Analogous device, colorable imitation. Gibson v. Van 
 Dresar, 1 Blatch. 532. 
 
 Omission of one element. Gill v. Wells, 22 Wall. 1. 
 
 Policy of rule of equivalents. Gill v. Wells, 22 Wall. 1. 
 
 Combination and entire process, not by combination and part 
 of process. Howe v. Abbott, 2 Story, 190; 2 Robb, 99. 
 
 Use of its various parts. Moody v. Fiske, 2 Mason, 112; 
 
 1 Robb, 312. 
 
 Must use all the parts. Parker v. Haworth, 4 McLean, 370; 
 
 2 Robb, 725; Prouty v. Draper, 1 Story, 568; 2 Robb, 
 75; Prouty v. Ruggles, 16 Peters, 336; 2 Robb, 93. 
 
 Omission of one ingredient. Rees v. Gould, 6 Fisher, 106; 
 
 2 Off. Gaz. 624. 
 Leaving out the new elements. Rich v. Close, 8 Blatch. 
 
 41; 4 Fisher, 279. 
 Selling parts to be put together. Richardson v. Noyes, 10 
 
 Off. Gaz. 507. 
 All the elements. Roberts v. Harnden, 2 Cliff. 500; Sands 
 
 V. Wardwell, 3 Cliff. 277; Stimpson v. Baltimore and 
 
 Susquehanna Railroad, 6 Otto, 549. 
 Making one part. Saxe v. Hammond, 1 Holmes, 456; 7 
 
 Off. Gaz. 781. 
 Is entirety. Schumacher v. Cornell, 6 Otto, 549 ; Vance o. 
 
 Campbell, 1 Black, 427.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS, 199 
 
 Combination — continued. 
 
 Smooth roller replaced by one covered with designs. Stimp- 
 
 son V. Woodman, 10 Wall. 117. 
 Making some parts in concert with another making the 
 rest. Wallace v. Holmes, 9 Blatch. 65; 5 Fisher, 37. 
 Change of form. Wilson v. Barnum, 2 Fisher, 635. 
 Comparison of machines. Conover v. Dohrman, G Blatch. 60; 
 3 Fisher, 382; Iloe v. Simpson, G Off. Gaz. 435. 
 Is for jury. Johnson v. Root, 1 Fisher, 351 ; King v. Mau- 
 
 delbaum, 8 Blatch. 468 ; 4 Fisher, 577. 
 Is best test. Marsh v. Seymour, 7 Otto, 348 ; 13 Off. Gaz. 
 723; Morris v. Roger, 2 Bond, 66 ; 3 Fisher, 176; Sey- 
 mour V. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516; Swift v. Whisen, 2 
 Bond, 115; 3 Fisher, 343. 
 Composition. Francis v. Mellor, 5 Fisher, 148; 1 Off. Gaz. 48; 
 Goodyear v. New York Gutta-i^ercha Co., 2 Fisher, 312; 
 Rich V. Lippincott, 2 Fisher, 1 ; United States and Foreign 
 Salamander Felting Co. v. Lawrence Manufacturing Co., 
 9 Off. Gaz. 202. 
 Compound. AVell-known equivalents. Woodward v. Morrison, 
 
 1 Holmes, 124; 5 Fislier, 357; 2 Off. Gaz. 120. 
 Construction of patent and comparison of machines. Imlay v. Nor- 
 wich and Worcester Railroad, 4 Blatch. 227 ; 1 Fisher, 340. • 
 Conveyance under insolvent law of Massachusetts. Ashcroft 
 V. Walworth, 1 Holmes, 152 ; 5 Fisher, 528; 2 Off. Gaz. 546. 
 Coi-poration. 
 
 Directors and agents are responsible. Goodyear v. Phelps, 
 
 3 Blatch. 91. 
 Director without control is not. Jones v. Osgood, 6 Blatch. 435. 
 New corporation may use cars licensed to old one. Light- 
 
 ner v. Boston and Albany Railroad, 1 Lowell, 338. 
 Not responsible for infringement by contractor. Lightner 
 
 V. Brooks, 2 Cliff. 287. 
 In other State connected with one in this. York and Mary- 
 land Line Railroad v. AVinans, 17 How. 30. 
 Damages. Cox v. Griggs, 1 Bissell, 362; 2 Fisher, 174; Hays 
 
 V. Sulsor, 1 Bond, 279 ; 1 Fisher, 532. 
 Defendant abandoning his contract may be sued as infringer. 
 Steam Cutter Co. v. Sheldon, 10 Blatch. 1; 5 Fisher, 477.
 
 200 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Denial mixst he direct. Goodyear v. Berry, 3 Fisher, 439. 
 Must be distinctly and unevasively denied in answer. Jordan 
 
 V. Wallace, 5 Fisher, 185. 
 Special denial. Mabie v. Haskell, 2 Cliff. 507. 
 Depends on construction given to plaintiff's patent. Knox ». 
 
 Murtha, 9 Elatch. 205; 5 Fisher, 174. 
 Formal differences. Cook v. Howard, 4 Fisher, 269; Klein r. 
 Park, 13 Off. Gaz. 5; Pennsylvania Salt Co. v. Thomas, 5 
 Fisher, 148. 
 Essential difference. Mann v. Baylies, 10 Off. Gaz. 789. 
 Marked difference. Werner v. King, 6 Otto, 218; 13 Off. Gaz. 
 
 176. 
 By employe. Boyce v. Dorr, 3 IMcLean, 582 ; 2 Robb, 302. 
 Equivalents. Aiken v. Dolan, 3 Fisher, 197; Byam v. Farr, 1 
 Curtis, 260; Carter v. Baker, 1 Sawyer, 512; 4 Fisher, 
 404; Clough v. Gilbert and Barker Manufacturing Co., 
 15 Off. Gaz. 1009; Conover v. Kapp, 4 Fisher, .57; Good- 
 year Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 12 Off. Gaz. Oct. 
 2d, I. 
 Palpable evasion. Hyndman i;. Roots, 7 Otto, 224; 13 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 868. 
 Mode of operation. King v. Werner, 12 Blatch. 270; 
 
 8 Oft'. Gaz. 301. 
 Intent. Matthews v. Skates, 1 Fisher, 602; Parker y. Rem- 
 hof, 14 Off. Gaz. 601 ; Parker v. Stiles, 5 McLean, 44 
 Poppenhusen v. Falke, 5 Blatch. 46; 2 Fisher, 213 
 Potter V. Davis Sewing Machine Co., 3 Fisher, 472 
 Smith V. DoM'ning, 1 Fisher, 64; Smith v. Marshall, 10 
 Off. Gaz. 375; Stanley Rule and Level Co. r. Bailey, 14 
 Blatch. 510; Taylor y. Archer, 8 Blatch. 315; 4 Fisher, 
 449; Tompkins v. Gage, 5 Blatch. 269; 2 Fisher, 577; 
 Vogler V. Semple, 11 Off. Gaz. 923. 
 Same actuating forces. Seymour v. Marsh, 6 Fisher, 115; 9 
 
 Phila. 380; 2 Off. Gaz. 675. 
 Comparative excellence irrelevant. Sickels v. Gloucester Man- 
 ufacturing Co., 1 Fisher, 222. * 
 Thing with two functions not infringed by thing with one only. 
 
 Bliss V. Haight, 7 Blatch. 7; 3 Fisher, 621. 
 Same function. Brown i;. Rubber Step, &c. Co. , 13 Off. Gaz. 369.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 201 
 
 Gist of the action. Evans v. Eaton, 3 Wash. 443; 1 Robb, 68. 
 
 By government. Brady v. Atlantic Works, 10 Off. Gaz. 702. 
 
 OfBcers. Cammeyer v. Xewton, 12 Blatch. 122; 5 Off. Gaz. 
 
 753; Cammeyer y. Newton, 4 Otto, 225; 11 Off. Gaz. 287. 
 
 On government vessel is not infringement in workman. 
 
 lieaton v. Quintard, 7 Blatch. 73. 
 Amount of compensation. Ilubbell v. United States, 5 
 
 N. & II. 1. 
 Is not a taking of private property for public use. Pitcher 
 
 V. United States, 1 N. & II. 7. 
 By warden of penitentiary. Pitcher v. United States, 1 
 N. & H. 7. 
 Taking ideas of plaintiff. McCormick v. Seymour, 2 Blatch. 
 
 240; McCormick v. Seymour, 3 Blatch. 209. 
 Identity, substantial. Pike v. Providence and Worcester Rail- 
 road, 1 Holmes, 445; 6 Off. Gaz. 575; Smith v. Mercer, 
 5 Penn. L. J. 529; Smith v. Pearce, 2 McLean, 176; 2 
 Robb, 13; Whitney w. Mowry, 2 Bond, 45; 3 Fisher, 
 157; Wintormute v. Redington, 1 Fisher, 239. 
 Two machines with same result are not necessarily the same. 
 Burr V. Duryee? 1 Wall. 531. 
 Illegal attempt of State to let city use without pay. Bliss v. 
 
 City of Brooklyn, 8 Blatch. 533; 4 Fisher, 590. 
 Improvement.^ effect of. Howes v. McNeal, 15 Off. Gaz. 608; 
 
 Winans v. New York and Ilavlem Railroad, 4 Fisher, 1. 
 What infringement is. H.ale c. Stimpson, 2 Fisher, 5G5; Ha- 
 selden v. Ogden, 3 Fisher, 378; Reutgen v. Kanowrs, 1 
 Wash. 168; 1 Robb, 1; Union Sugar Refinery v. Matthie- 
 son, 3 Cliff. 639; 2 Fisher, 600. 
 May recover for infiingement between fire of 1836 and restor- 
 ing records. Hogg v. Emerson, 6 How. 437; 2 Robb, 655. 
 Patents for use not infringed by making and selling. Key- 
 stone Bridge Co. i'. Phoenix Iron Co., 5 Fisher, 468; 1 Off. 
 Gaz. 471. 
 Process not infringed by sale of product. Merrill v. Yeomans, 
 
 4 Otto, .568; 11 Off. Gaz. 970. 
 Where no infringement is found court will not pass on novelty. 
 
 Saxe V. Hammond, 1 Holmes, 456; 7 Off. Gaz. 781. 
 Intention. Hawes v. Washburne, 5 Off. Gaz. 491.
 
 202 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Interest. Lack of, in one defendant. Hussey v. Bradley, 5 
 
 Blatch. 13i. 
 By joint owner, damages apportioned. Herring v. Gas Con- 
 sumers' Association, 13 Off. Gaz. 637. 
 Joint infringement. Poppenhusen v. Falke, 4 Blatch. 493; 2 
 
 Fisher, 181. 
 Is for jury. Jackson v. Allen, 120 Mass. 64; Kneassr. Schuyl- 
 kill Bank, 4 Wash. 9; 1 Robb, 303; Motte v. Bennett, 2 
 
 Fisher, 642. 
 License. 
 
 Use by purchaser outside territory of licensee. Adams v. 
 Burke, 1 Holmes, 40; 4 Fisher, 392; 1 Of£. Gaz. 282. 
 
 By licensee violating his contract. Cohn v. National 
 Rubber Co., 15 Off. Gaz. 829; Goodyear v. Providence 
 Rubber Co., 2 Cliff. 351; 2 Fisher, 499. 
 Substantially same machine. Johnson v. Root, 1 Fisher, 351. 
 Sale of materials by sheriff is not. Sawiu v. Guild, 1 Gall. 
 
 485; 1 Robb, 47. 
 Same means. Ives v. Hamilton, 2 Otto, 426; 10 Off. Gaz. 336; 
 
 Mallory v. White, 8 Blatch. 552; 4 Fisher, 628. 
 Mechanical change. Myers v. Dunbar, 8 Blatch. 446; 4 Fisher, 
 
 493; Whipple v. Middlesex Company, 4 Fisher, 41. 
 Mechanical substitute. Rice r. Heald, 13 Pac. L. R. 33. 
 Making to use but not using. Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall. 
 
 429 ; 1 Robb, 28. 
 Mode of operation the same. American Manufacturing Co. v. 
 
 Lane, 14 Blatch. 438; 15 Off. Gaz. 421; Earle v. Harlow, 
 
 9 Off. Gaz. 1018; Evarts v. Ford, 6 Fisher, 587; 5 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 58; Gray v. James, Peters C. C. 394; 1 Robb, 120; 
 
 Hartshorn v. Tripp, 7 Blatch. 120; Wyeth v. Stone, 1 
 
 Story, 273; 2 Robb, 23. 
 Mode of operation different. Merriam v. Van Nest, 13 Oft". 
 
 Gaz. 597. 
 Parts, selling the parts. Graham v. Mason, 1 Holmes, 88; 5 
 
 Fisher, 290; 1 Off. Gaz. 609. 
 Performing same function. Tillotson v. Munson, 5 Bissell, 
 
 426. 
 By le.ss perfect machine. Union Metallic Cartridge Co. v. 
 United States Cartridge Co., 11 Off. Gaz. 1113.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 203 
 
 Principle the same. Aultman '■. IloUey, 11 Blatch. 317 ; G Fisher, 
 534; 5 Off. Gaz. 3; Converse v. Cannon, 2 Woods, 7; 9 
 Off. Gaz. 105; Johnson v. Fassman, 1 Woods, 138; 5 
 Fisher, 471; 2 Off. Gaz. 94; Judson v. Cope, 1 Bond, 
 327; 1 Fisher, 615; La Baw v. Hawkins, 6 Off. Gaz. 
 727; Latta v. Shawk, 1 Bond, 259; 1 Fisher, 465; Lee 
 V. Bhindy, 1 Bond, 361; 2 Fisher, 89; Lyman Ventilat- 
 ing, &c. Co, V. Lalor, 12 Blatch. 303; 6 Off. Gaz. 642. 
 Carried farther. Tracy v. Torrey, 2 Blatch. 275. 
 Sale of product of patented machine. Boyd v. McAlpin, 3 
 
 McLean, 427; 2 Robb, 277. 
 Process. 
 
 Lower pressure in. American Wood Paper Co. v. Fibre 
 Disintegrating Co., 6 Blatch. 27; 5 Fisher, 362; Amer- 
 ican Wood i^aper Co. v. Heft, 3 Fisher, 316. 
 Different, but with same result. Badische Anilin, &c. v. 
 
 Hamilton Manufacturing Co., 14 Off. Gaz. 414. 
 Same. Buchanan v. Howland, 5 Blatch. 151 ; 2 Fisher, 341 ; 
 Burr V. Cowperthwait, 4 Blatch. 163; Clark v. Kennedy 
 Manufacturing Co., 14 Blatch. 79; 11 Off. Gaz. 67; 
 Goodyear u. Beverly Rubber Co., 1 Cliff. 348; Goodyear 
 V. New Jersey Central Railroad, 2 Wall. Jr. 356; 1 
 Fisher. 626. 
 Different process. Merrill v. Yeomans, 1 Holmes, 331; 5 
 
 Off. Gaz. 267. 
 
 Same process. Mitchell v. Tilghman, 19 Wall. 287 ; Mowry 
 
 V. Wliitney, 14 Wall. 620; 5 Fisher, 494; 1 Off. Gaz. 
 
 492; Piper v. Brown, 1 Holmes, 20; 4 Fisher, 175; 
 
 Tilghman v. Mitchell, 2 Fisher, 518. 
 
 Only part. Tilghman v. Werk, 1 Bond, 511 ; 2 Fisher, 229. 
 
 Purchase by patentee's agent as evidence. Byam v. BuUard, 1 
 
 Curtis, 100. 
 Purchase of infringer. Eunson v. Dodge, 18 Wall. 414; 5 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 95. 
 Purpose the same. Foss v. Herbert, 1 Bissell, 121; 2 Fisher, 31. 
 Before reissue. MofRtt v. Gaar, 1 Fisher, 610. 
 Of reissue is new cause of action. Reedy v. Scott, 7 Off. Gaz. 463. 
 Remedies for. Vaughau v. Central Pacific Railroad, 4 Sawyer, 
 280.
 
 204 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Result the same. 
 
 Different means. American Pin Co. v. Oakville Co., 3 
 Blatch. 190. 
 
 Same means. Knox v. Loweree, 6 Off. Gaz. 802. 
 
 Same means. McComb v. Beard, 10 Blatch. 350; 6 Fisher, 
 254 ; 3 Off. Gaz. 33; Roberts v. Harnden, 2 Cliff. 500. 
 
 In same way. Searls ?'. Van Nest, 13 Off. Gaz. 772; Sickels 
 V. Borden, 3 Blatch. 535. 
 By salesman selling without interest. Maltby v. Bobo, 14 
 
 Blatch. 53. 
 By school committee. Allen v. City of Brooklyn, 4 Fisher, 598. 
 State of the art. United States Gauge Co. v. American Gauge 
 
 Co., 1 Holmes, 309; 5 Off. Gaz. 208. 
 Test of. 
 
 Taken as a whole. Pickering v. Phillips, 10 Off. Gaz. 420. 
 
 Taking each part separately. Wheeler v. Clipper Mower, 
 &c. Co., 10 Blatch. 181; 6 Fisher, 1; 2 Off. Gaz. 442. 
 Is a tort. Stein v. Goddard, 1 McAllister, 82. 
 Trespass on the case for. Chaffee v. Boston Belting Co., 22 
 
 How. 217. 
 Unwitting infringement, only compensatory damages. Parker 
 
 V. Corbin, 4 McLean, 402; 2 Robb, 736. 
 Greater utility as a defense. Many v. Sizer, 1 Fisher, 17. 
 Immaterial variations. Russell and Ervvin Manufacturing Co. 
 
 V. Manufacturing Co., 12 Blatch. 30; 7 Off. Gaz. 383. 
 Not considered when patent is void. Kirby v. Dodge and 
 
 Stevenson Manufacturing Co., 10 Blatch. 307; 6 Fisher, 
 
 156; 3 Off. Gaz. 181. 
 (See Admissions; Allegation; Hill; Burden of Proof; 
 
 Contract; Corporation; Damages; Form; Injunc- 
 tion; Interference; Joint Owners; Patent; Suits; 
 
 Uncertainty.) 
 
 INJUNCTION. 
 
 Assignee's right to injunction is by statute. Jenkins v. Green- 
 
 wald, 1 Bond, 126 ; 2 Fisher, 37. 
 Bona fide issue. Goodyear v. Dunbar, 3 Wall. Jr. 310; 1 Fisher, 
 
 472. 
 Conditional. Goodyear v. Housinger, 2 Bissell, 1; 3 Fisher, 
 
 147.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 206 
 
 Contempt, violation of injunction. 
 
 Violation must be plainly and satisfactorily shown. Bird- 
 sell V. Hagerstown Agricultural Implement, &c. Co., 1 
 Hughes, 59; 11 Off. Gaz. 420. 
 
 Selling things under patent not considered at trial. Buerk 
 V. Imhauser, 11 Off. Gaz. 112. 
 
 Substitution of equivalent. Carstaedt v. United States 
 Corset Co., 13 Blateh. 371; 10 Off. Gaz. 3. 
 
 Effect of bond acknowledging validity. Byam v. Eddy, 2 
 Blateh. 521; 24 Vt. 666. 
 
 Attachment and fine. Craig v. Fisher, 5 Pac. L. R. 52. 
 
 Amount of punishment, poverty of defendant. Double- 
 day V. Sherman, 4 Fisher, 253. 
 
 Sometimes defendants are not entitled to favor. Goodyear 
 V. Mullee, 5 Blateh. 429; 3 Fisher, 209. 
 
 Intention. Goodyear v. Mullee, 5 Blateh. 463 ; 3 Fisher, 259. 
 
 Defendant cannot leave out part at will and go ahead. 
 Hamilton o. Simons, 5 Bissell, 77. 
 
 Advice of counsel no defense. Hamilton v. Simons, 5 Bis- 
 seU, 77. 
 
 At request of patentee's agent, conspiracy charged. 
 Knowles v. Peck, 42 Conn. 386. 
 
 Article never sold till after injunction, not properly raised 
 on contempt. Liddle r. Coiy, 7 Blateh. 1. 
 
 Evident non-infringement. Xew York "\Yii-e Rail Co. v. 
 Walker, 2 Fisher, 179. 
 
 By using equivalent. Poppenhusen v. Xew York Gutta- 
 percha Comb Co., 4 Blateh. 253 ; 2 Fisher, SO. 
 
 Enjoined from making and selling, sells as agent. Potter 
 V. Muller, 1 Bond, 601 ; 2 Fisher, 631. 
 
 Studied attempt to use plaintiff's invention. Schillinger v. 
 Gunther, 14 Blateh. 152 ; 11 Off. Gaz. 831. 
 
 What constitutes violation. Sickels v. Borden, 4 Blateh. 14. 
 
 On unconsidered points. Welling v. Rubber Coated Har- 
 ness Trimming Co., 7 Off. Gaz. 608. 
 
 Attempt to invade. WetherDl v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 5 
 Off. Gaz. 460. 
 
 What is open and what not. Whipple v. Hutchinson, 4 
 Blateh. 190.
 
 206 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Contempt, violation of injunction — continued. 
 
 Macliine of same principle. Woodworth v. Rogers, 3 W. 
 
 &M. 135; 2 Robb, 625. 
 Against disclosure of invention kept secret. Peabody v. Nor- 
 folk, 98 Mass. 4.52. 
 Dissolution of injunctions. 
 
 Lack of interest. Brammer v. Jones, 2 Bond, 100; 3 Fisher, 
 
 340. 
 Privity of purchaser. Dayton v. Wright, 11 Off. Gaz. 197. 
 Laches and acquiescence. Doubleday v. Sherman, 6 Blatch. 
 
 513. 
 Povper of district judges. Hussey v. Whitely, 1 Bond, 
 
 407; 2 Fisher, 120. 
 Injury to defendant no ground. Hussey v. Whitely, 1 Bond, 
 
 407; 2 Fisher, 120. 
 Long possession by plaintiff, discretion of court. Orr v. 
 
 Badger, 7 Law Rep. 465. 
 Trials at law, proper answers. Orr v. Merrill, 1 W. & M. 
 
 376; 2 Robb, 331. 
 Defenses not proved cannot be set up. Union Paper Bag 
 
 Machine Co. v. Newell, 11 Blatch. 549; 5 OfE. Gaz. 
 
 173. 
 After reissue. Woodworth v. Stone, 3 Story, 749 ; 2 Robb, 296. 
 Want of novelty. Young v. Lippman, 9 Blatch. 283; 5 
 
 Fisher, 230- 2 Off. Gaz. 249. 
 On account of invalidity of extension. Bloomer v. StoUy, 
 
 5 McLean, 158. 
 Prior inventions set up and examined. Frink v. Petry, 11 
 
 Blatch. 422; 5 Off. Gaz. 201. 
 Granted, license from plaintiff. Goodyear v. Bourn, 3 
 
 Blatch. 266. 
 Particular case, not absolute dissolution. Wilson v. Bar- 
 
 num, 1 Wall. Jr. 347; 2 Robb, 749. 
 Suit at law on validity not brought by next term. Wood- 
 worth V. Edwards, 3 W. & M. 120; 2 Robb, 610. 
 Not for technical objections which may be removed. 
 
 Woodworth o. Hall, 1 W. & M. 389; 2 Robb, 517. 
 New evidence improperly neglected. Woodworth v. Rogers, 
 
 3 W. &M. 135; 2 Robb, 625.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 207 
 
 Granting. 
 
 Suit too soon after issue. Ayling v. Hull, 2 Cliff. 494; 
 Hovey v. Stevens, 1 W. & M. 290; 2 Robb, 479. 
 * Not, where long adverse possession by defendant. Cooper u. 
 Mattheys, 8 Law Kep. 413; Hall v. Speer, 6 Pitts. L. J. 
 403. 
 Not, -where facts or credibility of witnesses have to be de- 
 cided. Cooper V. Mattheys, 8 Law Rep. 413. 
 Doubt. Isaacs v. Cooper, 4 Wash. 259; 1 Robb, 333. 
 
 Granted where validity fully established, in spite of damage to 
 defendant. Hodge v. Hudson River Railroad, 6 Blatch. 
 165. 
 
 Short time since issue and no adjudication of validity, denied. 
 Jones v. Field, 12 Blatch. 494. 
 
 Against suits under patents not yet declared invalid. Asbestos 
 Felting Co. V. United States and Foreign Salamander Felt- 
 ing Co., 13 Blatch. 453; 10 Off. Gaz. 828. 
 
 Generally, license. Bicknell v. Todd, 3 McLean, 236. 
 
 From suing defendant's vendees. Birdsell v. Hagerstown Agri- 
 cultural Implement, &c. Co., 1 Hughes, -59; 11 Off. Gaz. 420. 
 
 Opens question of merits. Blake v. Rawson, 1 Holmes, 200; 6 
 Fisher, 74; 3 Off. Gaz. 122. 
 
 Modifying. Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. *;. "Whitney, 31 Leg. 
 Int. 229. 
 
 Protection for defendants. Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. 
 Whitney, 31 Leg. Int. 229. 
 
 Mischief caused by. Day v. Candee, 3 Fisher, 9. 
 
 Defendant's stopping no reason for not making perpetual. 
 Jenkins v. Green wald, 1 Bond, 126; 2 Fisher, 37. 
 
 State court cannot enjoin United States courts. Kendall v. 
 Winsor, 6 R. I. 453. 
 
 No vindictive injunctions. Livingston v. Jones, 3 Wall. Jr. 330; 
 2 Fisher, 207. 
 
 When they will issue against defendant holding a patent. Mc- 
 Comb V. Ernest, 1 Woods, 195. 
 
 Against waste. Morse v. Oreilly, 6 Penn. L. J. 501. 
 
 Rules for granting. Ogle v. Ege, 4 Wash. 584; 1 Robb, 516. 
 
 Undisturbed possession, sleeping on his rights. Orr v. Little- 
 field, 1 W. «& M. 13; 2 Robb, 333.
 
 208 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Injury to defendant. Orr v. Littlefield, 1 \Y. & M. 13; 2 
 Robb, 333. 
 
 May issue on facts found by Master or jury. Parker v. Hat- 
 field, 4 McLean, 61. 
 
 Should not be suspended till decree. Potter v. Mack, 3 Fisher, 
 428; Rumford Chemical Works v. Heckev, 11 Off. Gaz. 330. 
 
 Terms imposed on granting. Rogers v. Abbott, 4 Wash. 514; 
 1 Robb, 405. 
 
 Irreparable injury. Sanders v. Logan, 2 Fisher, 167. 
 
 Prior suit at law not necessary. Sanders v. Logan, 2 Fisher, 167. 
 
 Nature of remedy. Singer Co. v. Union Co., 1 Holmes, 253; 
 6 Fisher, 480; 4 Off. Gaz. 553; Woodworth v. Rogers, 3 
 W. & M. 135 ; 2 Robb, 625. 
 
 May issue to stop violation of contract which could not be spe- 
 cifically performed. Singer Co. v. Union Co., 1 Holmes, 
 253; 6 Fisher, 480; 4 Off. Gaz. 553. 
 
 Equitable release by plaintiff, attachment refused. Smith v. 
 Patton, 6 Penn. L. J. 189. 
 
 Refused, valuable improvements by defendant. Staiuthorp v. 
 Humiston, 2 Fisher, 311. 
 
 Will not issue after patent has expired. Vaughan v. Central 
 Pacific Railroad, 4 Sawyer, 280. 
 
 Reasonable notice of. Wilson v. Stolly, 4 McLean, 273. 
 
 When they will issue, long possession. Woodworth v. Hall, 1 
 W. &M. 248; 2 Robb, 495. 
 
 Refusing. Wyeth v. Stone, 1 Story, 273; 2 Robb, 23. 
 
 (See Account; Appeal; Contract; Damages; Jurisdic- 
 tion.) 
 
 INJURY. 
 
 (See Preliminary Injunctions.) 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS. 
 (See Jury ; New Trial ; Verdict.) 
 
 INTENTION. 
 
 (See Abandonment; Defective Specification; Injunc- 
 tion; Penalty; Uncertainty.)
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 209 
 
 INTEREST. 
 (See Appeal; Assignment; Damages; Suits; Witnesses.) 
 
 IXTERFEREXCE. 
 
 What it is. Bain v. !Morse, 6 West. L.J. 372; Gold and Silver 
 
 Ore, &c. Co. v. United States Disintegrating Co., 3 Fisher, 
 
 489. 
 If no infiingement, no interference. Smith v. Woodruff, 1 
 
 Mc Arthur, 459; 6 Fisher, 476; 4 Off. Gaz. 635. 
 Is for Commissioner. Gower, Ex parte. 15 Off. Gaz. 828. 
 Power of Commissioner by statute. Potter v. Dixon, 5 Blatch. 
 
 160; 2 Fisher, 381. 
 Decision of Patent Office not conclusive. Union Paper Bag 
 
 Machine Co. v. Crane, 1 Holmes, 429; 6 Off. Gaz. 801. 
 Question is, Jirst inventor. Garratt i'. Seibert, 8 Otto, 75; 15 
 
 Off. Gaz. 383. 
 Practice of putting reissues in interference with unexpired 
 
 patents condemned. Platts, Ex parte, 15 Off. Gaz. 827. 
 Interfering patents reissued to cover each other. Smith v. 
 
 Allen, 2 Fisher, 572. 
 (See Commissioner; Construction of Patents; Jurisdic- 
 tion.) 
 
 INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS. 
 
 Subject to revision. Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co., 14 
 Blatch. 109; 11 Off. Gaz. 501. 
 
 (See Decree.) 
 
 INTERPRETATION. 
 (See Assignment; Contract; Construction of Patents.) 
 
 INTIMIDATION. 
 (See Preliminary Injunctions.) 
 
 INVENTION. 
 
 Accidental making is not. Pelton i;. Waters, 7 Off. Gaz. 425. 
 
 14
 
 210 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Approximations to. Sayles r. Chicago and Northwestern Rail- 
 road, 3 Bissell, 52; 4 Fisher, 586. 
 Of compound should state ingredients. Jenkins v. Walker, 1 
 
 Holmes, 120; 5 Fisher, 347; 1 Off. Gaz. 359. 
 What constitutes. Adams v. Edwards, 1 Fisher, 1 ; Conover v. 
 Roach, 4 Fisher, 12; Dunbar v. Myers, 4 Otto, 187; 11 Off. 
 Gaz. 35; Marsh v. Seymour, 7 Otto, 348; 13 Off. Gaz. 723; 
 Sanford v. Merrimack Hat Co., 10 Off. Gaz. 466; Thompson 
 V. Haight, 1 U. S. L. J. 563; Tyler v. Devel, 8 Peun. L. J. 
 248; &c. 
 Is perfected conception. Woodbury v. Wilcox, 2 A. L. T. 
 
 (U. S.) R. 129. 
 Date of. . 
 
 Is date of discovery and attempt to embody. Colt v. 
 
 Massachusetts Arms Co., 1 Fisher, 108. 
 Application presumed to be, in lack of other proof. Dane 
 
 V. Chicago Manufacturing Co., 2 Off. Gaz. 677. 
 Goes back to discovery. Dixon v. Moyer, 4 Wash. 68; 1 
 
 Robb, 324. 
 Shown by sketches if no unreasonable delay since. Draper 
 
 V. Potomska Mills, 13 Off. Gaz. 276. 
 Shown by sketches. Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co., 5 
 
 Fisher, 456; 9 Phila. 368; 1 Off. Gaz. 466. 
 Burden of proof, laying aside part and then restoring it. 
 
 Johnson v. Root, 2 Cliff. 108; 2 Fisher, 291. 
 Completed and in private use. Knox v. Loweree, 6 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 802. 
 Reduced to practice in some complete form. Matthews v. 
 
 Skates, 1 Fisher, 602. 
 Practical machine without knowing its uses. Piper v. 
 
 Brown, 1 Holmes, 20; 4 Fisher, 175. 
 Speculation reduced to practice. Roberts i'. Reed Torpedo 
 
 Co., 3 Fisher, 629. 
 Date of first conception and first description. Sayles v. 
 
 Ilapgood, 2 Bissell, 189; 3 Fisher, 632. 
 Estoppel by prior statement. Union Paper Bag Machine 
 
 Co. V. Crane, 1 Holmes, 429; 6 Off. Gaz. 801. 
 Must be proved if earlier than application, there is no pre- 
 sumption. Wing V. Richardson, 2 Cliff. 449; 2 Fisher, 
 
 535.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 211 
 
 Date of — continued. 
 
 Conception of idea as afterwards patented. Woodman v. 
 Stimpson, 3 Fisher, 98. 
 
 Invention to cure theoretical defects. Aiken v. Dolan, 3 
 Fisher, 197. 
 
 For improvements. Merrill v. Yeomans, 4 Otto, 568; 11 Off. 
 Gaz. 970. 
 
 Charge of irregularity must be proved. Johnson v. Root, 2 
 Cliff. 108; 2 Fisher, 291. 
 
 Pirated, does not defeat inventor's right. Kendall v. Winsor, 
 21 How. 322. 
 
 Are tlie same if so in fact, though different in effect. Merrill. 
 Rufus S., 5 Off. Gaz. 120. 
 
 Valuable. Wilson v. Turner, Taney, Dec. 278. 
 
 (See CoNSTKucTioN OF Patents; Employe; Estoppel; In- 
 junction; Inventor; Joint Owners; Original In- 
 ventor; Patent; Prior Use; Publications; Reissue; 
 Secrecy; Statute; Want of Novelty.) 
 
 INVENTOR. 
 
 Who is entitled to patent. Ball v. Murry, 10 Penn. St. 111. 
 
 First in fact, not by patents. Allen v. Blunt, 2 W. & M. 121; 
 2 Robb, 530. 
 
 First who perfects and adapts to actual use. Albright v. Cellu- 
 loid Harness Trimming Co., 12 Oft'. Gaz. 227; Whitely ^). 
 Swayne, 7 Wall. 685. 
 
 First inventor in law. Woodcock v. Parker, 1 Gall. 438; 1 
 Robb, ,37. 
 
 Honest belief, patent abroad just afterwards to strengthen it. 
 Aiken v. Dolan, 3 Fisher, 197. 
 
 Of improvements. Colt v. Massachusetts Arms Co., 1 Fisher, 
 108; Conover r. Rapp, 4 Fisher, 57; Cook v. Howard, 4 
 Fisher, 269; Watson v. Bladen, 4 Wash. 580; 1 Robb, 510. 
 
 Of combinations. Cahill v. Brown, 15 Off. Gaz. 697. 
 
 Oath of. Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516. 
 
 Of part. Goodyear v. Matthews, 1 Paine, 300; 1 Robb, .50; 
 Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall. 478; 1 Robb, 40.
 
 212 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Of part claiming whole. Batten v. Taggert, 2 Wall. Jr. 101 ; 
 
 Batten v. Taggert, 17 How. 74. 
 Patent p-imrt /acie evidence of his rights. Heinrich v. Luther, 
 
 6 McLean, 34.5. 
 Patentee of improvement cannot afterwards patent the whole. 
 
 Turner v. Green, 2 Cranch, C. C. 287. 
 Peculiar disadvantages of some inventors. McCormick v. Sey- 
 mour, 3 Blatch. 209. 
 Prima facie rights. Grover and Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. 
 
 Williams, 2 Fisher, 132. 
 Inventor is purchaser from public, description is the considera- 
 tion. AVintermute v. Redington, 1 Fisher, 239. 
 Rights. 
 
 Only one royalty for one machine. Bloomer v. Millenger, 
 1 Wall. 340. 
 
 None at common law. Dudley v. Mayhew, 3 N". Y. 9. 
 
 What they are. Evans v. Weiss, 2 Wash. 342; 1 Robb, 
 10. 
 
 Are federal. Hollida v. Hunt, 70 111. 109. 
 
 Notice to public of. Hovey v. Rubber Tip Pencil Co. , 33 
 N. Y. Supr. 522. 
 
 To treble damages under patent law. Keplinger v. De 
 Young, 10 Wheat. 358; 1 Robb, 458. 
 
 Of subsequent inventors to have patent clear. Merrill v. 
 Yeomans, 4 Otto, 568; 11 Off. Gaz. 970. 
 
 Against purchasers. Mitchell v. Havvley, 16 Wall. 544; 3 
 Off. Gaz. 241. 
 
 Equivalents. Singer v. AValraesley, 1 Fisher, 558. 
 
 To his invention. Sloat v. Patton, 1 Fisher, 154. 
 Suggestions. Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 AVall. 583. 
 (See Construction of Patents; Dedication; Lnterfer- 
 
 ENCE.) 
 
 IRREGULARITY. 
 (See Invkntion ; Pleading.) 
 
 ISSUE. 
 Feigned issues. Foote v. Silsby, 1 Blatch. 545; Goodyear o. 
 Providence Rubber Co., 2 Cliff. 351; 2 Fisher, 499.
 
 SYNOPSIS OP LAW POINTS. 213 
 
 No decision of poiuts not in issue. Celluloid Manufacturing 
 Co. V. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 13 Blatch. 375; 
 10 Off. Gaz. 41. 
 
 For jury or for master. Parker v. Hatfield, 4 McLean, 61. 
 
 Of patent, remedy for unintentional issue. Doughty v. West, 
 6 Blatch. 429 ; 3 Fisher, 580. 
 
 (See Assignment.) 
 
 JOINDER. 
 
 (See Assignee; Parties.) 
 
 JOINT ACTION. 
 
 (See Suits.) 
 
 JOINT OWNERS. 
 
 Are not copartners. Pitts v. Hall, 3 Blatch. 20. 
 
 Cannot recover from each other for infringement. De Witt v. 
 
 Elmira Nobles Manufacturing Co., 66 N. Y. 459; Vose v. 
 
 Singer, 4 Allen (Mass.), 226. 
 Joint patent for sole invention is bad. Slemmer's Appeal, 58 
 
 Penn. St. 155. 
 Rights of joint owners. Pitts v. Hall, 3 Blatch. 20. 
 .(See CoxsTUucTiON of Patents; Infringement; License; 
 Partners; Patent.) 
 
 JUDGMENT. 
 (See Court; Estoppel; Pleading.) 
 
 JUDICIAL NOTICE. 
 Brown v. Piper, 1 Otto, 37; 10 Off. Gaz. 417. 
 
 JURAT. 
 
 Date of. French i'. Rogers, 1 Fisher, 133. 
 
 JURISDICTION. 
 Account without injunction. Blank v. Manufacturing Co., 3 
 WaU. Jr. 196.
 
 214 PATENT CASE INDEX, 
 
 Account and discovery without injunction. Sickels v. Glouces- 
 ter Manufacturing Co., 1 Fisher, 222. 
 Effect of appearance of defendant out of jurisdiction. Good- 
 year V. Chaffee, 3 Blatch. 268. 
 Appearance and plea by attorney admits jurisdiction. Thayer 
 
 V. Wales, 5 Fisher, 448. 
 Appellate jurisdiction of Circuit Courts. Stearns v. Barrett, 1 
 
 Mason, 153; 1 Robb, 97. 
 Of bills for discovery. Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co., 14 
 
 Blatch. 109; 11 Off. Gaz. 501. 
 On certificate of division is only for law points. Wilson v. Bar- 
 
 num, 8 How. 258. 
 Citizenship. 
 
 Depends on subject-matter, not citizenship. Allen v. 
 
 Blunt, 1 Blatch. 480. 
 Generally. Goodyear v. Union Rubber Co., 4 Blatch. 63; 
 Merserole v. Union Paper Collar Co., 6 Blatch. 356; 3 
 Fisher, 483. 
 Both parties of same State. Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 
 205; 7 Off. Gaz. 964; Livingston v. Van Ingen, 1 
 Paine, 45. 
 When objection should be taken. Nesmith v. Calvert, 1 
 
 W. &M. 34; 2 Robb, 311. 
 Evidence. Stainthorp v. Humiston, 4 Fisher, 107. 
 Contract. Brown v. Shannon, 20 How. 55. 
 
 Cancelling. Brooks v. Stolly, 3 McLean, 523; 2 Robb, 281. 
 Circuit Court, agreement to sell. Rice v. Garnhart, 34 
 Wise. 453. 
 Corporation. 
 
 Foreign, found in State. Day v. Newark India-rubber 
 Co., 1 Blatch. 028; Williams v. Empire Transportation 
 Co., 14 Off. Gaz. 523. 
 Waiver by. Decker v. New York Belting, &c. Co., 6 
 
 Fisher, 374; 3 Off. Gaz. 441. 
 Is under United States laws. Elm City Co. v. Wooster, 6 
 Fisher, 452; 4 Off. Gaz. 83. 
 Court of District of Columbia. Cochrane v. Deener, 4 Otto, 
 789; 11 Off. Gaz. 687; Mason v. Rowley, 3 A. L. T. 
 (U. S.) R. 8.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 215 
 
 Court, Circuit. 
 
 Prior jurisdiction in State court. Brandon Manufacturing 
 Co. V. Prime, 14 Biatch. 371. 
 
 Used in France for Frencli vessel. Brown v. Duchesne, 2 
 Curtis, 371. 
 
 None where validity is not involved. Burr v. Gregory, 2 
 Paine, 426. 
 
 Equity. Continental Windmill Co. v. Empire Windtaill 
 Co., 8 Biatch. 295; 4 Fisher, 428. 
 
 Equity, suit at law not a prerequisite. McMillin v. Bar- 
 clay, 5 Fisher, 189. 
 
 Exclusive in United States courts. Mitchell v. Tilghman, 
 19 Wall. 287. 
 
 Under United States laws. Nesmith v. Calvert, 1 W. &M. 
 34; 2Robb, 311. 
 
 In patent suits. Xevins v. Johnson, 3 Biatch. 80. 
 
 Of interfering patents is original, not appellate. Squire, 
 J. L., In re, 12 Off. Gaz. 1025. 
 
 Equity in patents, acquiescence and enjoyment. Sullivan v. 
 Redfield, 1 Paine, 441 ; 1 Kobb, 477. 
 Courts, State. Boston and Fair Haven Iron Works v. Monta- 
 gue, 108 Mass. 248; De Witt v. Elmira Nobles Manu- 
 facturing Co., 5 Hun (N. Y.), 301 ; Burrall v. Jewett, 2 
 Paige (N. Y.), 134; Elmer v. Pennel, 40 Maine, 430; 
 Kendall v. Win.sor, 6 R. I. 453; Leonard v. Barnum, 34 
 Wise. 105 ; Lindsay v. Roraback, 4 Jones, Eq. (N. C.) 
 124; Lockwood v. Lockwood, 33 Iowa, 198; Page v. 
 Dickerson, 28 Wise. 694; Rich v. Atwater, 16 Conn. 
 409; Whitehead v. Kitson, 119 Mass. 484. 
 
 None in State courts where validity is involved. Dudley 
 V. Mayhew, 3 N. Y. 9; Gibson v. Woodworth, 8 Paige 
 (N. Y.), 132; Green v. Willard Improved Barrel Co., 
 1 Mo. App. 202; Hovey v. Rubber Tip Pencil Co., 33 
 N. Y. Supr. 522; Parsons v. Barnard, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 
 144; Slemmer's Appeal, 58 Penn. St. 155; Smith v. 
 McClelland, 11 Bush (Ky.), 523; Stone v. Edwards, 
 35 Texas, 556 ; Tomlinson r. Battel, 4 Abb. (N. Y.) 266. 
 
 Have jurisdiction where patents come in collaterally. Bil- 
 lings V. Ames, 32 Mo. 265.
 
 216 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Courts — continued. 
 
 Equity, full legal remedy. Black v. Stone, 33 Ala. 327. 
 Have, breach of warranty, false representations. Hunt v. 
 
 Hoover, 24 Iowa, 231. 
 Have, of contract even if patent is involved. Middlebrook 
 
 V. Broadbent, 47 N. Y. 443. 
 Have, where validity is not necessarily involved. Sherman 
 
 V. Champlain Transportation Co., 31 Vt. 162. 
 Have, of contracts, false representations. Snow v. Judson, 
 
 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 210. 
 Patent lottery cannot be used where illegal. Vannini v. 
 
 Pg-ine, 1 Harr. (Del.) 65. 
 Have, except where validity is involved: "Wright v. Wilson, 
 11 Ptich. (S. C.) 144. 
 License transferred. Bloomer v. Gilpin, 4 Fisher, 50. 
 Of quantum valebant for use. Battin v. Kear, 2 Phila. 301. 
 Surrogate, domicile of patentee when he died. Providence Rub- 
 ber Co. V. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788. 
 To vacate patent. Attorney-General v. Rumford Chemical 
 
 Works, 9 Off. Gaz. 1062. 
 (See Commissioner; Equity; New Trial; Sale; Waiver.) 
 
 JURY. 
 
 In chancery. Brooks v. Norcross, 2 Fisher, 661; Ely v. Mon- 
 
 son, &c. Co., 4 Fisher, 64. 
 Form of instructions to. Pitts v. Whitman, 2 Story, 609; 2 
 
 Robb, 189. 
 Weight of decision by, in patent suits. Roberts v. Schuyler, 12 
 
 Blatch. 444. 
 Duty of. Singer v. Walmesley, 1 Fisher, 558. 
 Province of. Hayden v. Suffolk Manufacturing Co., 4 Fisher, 
 
 86. 
 Identity is for jury. Tucker v. Spaulding, 13 Wall. 453; 5 
 
 Fisher, 297; 1 Off. Gaz. 144. 
 Effect of juryman taken ill. Foote v. Silsby, 1 Blatch. 445; 
 
 Silsby V. Foote, 14 IIow. 218. 
 Identity of two patents not on their face. Hawkes v. Reming- 
 ton, 111 Mass. 171.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 217 
 
 Questions left to. Carver v. Braintree Manufacturing Co., 2 
 
 Story, 432; 2 Robb, 441; Foote v. Silsby, 1 Blatch. 445. 
 Trial by jury. Cahoon v. Ring, 1 Cliff. 592 ; 1 Fisher, 397. 
 
 In patent causes. Buchanan v. Howland, 5 Blatch. 151 ; 2 
 
 Fisher, 341. 
 In equity, province of court. Goodyear v. Day, 2 Wall. Jr. 
 
 283. 
 In England and here. Motte v. Bennett, 2 Fisher, 642. 
 Time to request court to charge. Vaughau v. Porter, 16 Vt. 
 
 266. 
 (See Damages; Issue; New Trial; Reissue; Suits; Use- 
 FULXESS ; Validity. ) 
 
 KNOWLEDGE OF PATENTEE. 
 
 (See Abandoned Experiments ; Prior Use ; Public 
 
 Action.) 
 
 LACHES. 
 
 (See Answer ; Bill ; Contract ; Forfeiture ; Injunc- 
 tion; Preliminary In.icnctions; Reissue.) 
 
 LANGUAGE. 
 (See Construction of Patents; Reissue.) 
 
 LAPSE OF TIME. 
 (See Abandonment ; Preliminary Injunctions.) 
 
 LAW. 
 (See Inventor ; Patents; Suits.) 
 
 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. 
 (See Assignee ; Suits.) 
 
 LEGISLATION. 
 (See Sale.)
 
 218 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 LIABILITY. 
 
 (See CORPOKATION.) 
 
 LICENSE. 
 
 What it is. Jones v. Burnham, 67 Me. 63. 
 
 Assignability. Belding v. Turner, 8 Blatch. 321 ; 4 Fisher, 446 ; 
 Bloomer v. Gilpin, 4 Fisher, 50; Wilson v. Stolly, 5 Mc- 
 Lean, 1. 
 
 As a defense. Hammond v. Organ Co., 1 Holmes, 296 ; 6 Fisher, 
 599; 5 Off. Gaz. 31; Hammond v. Organ Co., 2 Otto, 724; 
 Hartshorn v. Day, 19 How. 211 ; Wilson v. Stolly, 4 Mc- 
 Lean, 275. 
 
 Exclusive, excludes patentee or grantor. Ferree v. Smith, 29 
 La. Ann. 811. 
 
 Exclusive, void patent no consideration. Harlow v. Putnam, 
 124 Mass. 553. 
 
 Effect of extension. Hodge v. Hudson River Railroad, 6 
 Blatch. 165. 
 
 Before extension, and use after. Day v. Union India-rubber 
 Co., 3 Blatch. 488. 
 
 Forfeiture by abandonment or neglect. Wilson v. Stolly, 5 
 McLean, 1. 
 
 Evidence of forfeiture. Wilson v. Stolly, 4 McLean, 275. 
 
 Fraud. Beane v. Orr, 9 Off. Gaz. 255. 
 
 From one joint-owner. Dunham v. Indiana and St. Louis Rail- 
 road, 7 Bissell, 223. 
 
 Joint recovery, other licenses. Florence Sewing Machine Co. v. 
 Grover and Baker Sewing Machine Co., 110 Mass. 70. 
 
 Held by plaintiffs. Grover and Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. 
 Williams, 2 Fisher, 132. 
 
 Recording. Chambers v. Smith, 5 Fisher, 12. 
 
 Rights of licensees. Dorsey Revolving Harvester Rake Co. ». 
 Bradley Manufacturing Co., 12 Blatch. 202. 
 
 Territorial license to use, use outside. Wicke v. Kleinknecht, 
 7 Off. Gaz. 1098. 
 
 To use. Black v. Hubbard, 12 Off. Gaz. 892. 
 
 To use one uses another. England v, Thompson, 3 Cliff. 
 271.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS, 219 
 
 Verbal. Bell v. INIcCulloch, 1 Bond, 194; 1 Fisher, 380. 
 
 (See Assignment; Contract; Defense; Estoppel; For- 
 feiture; Infringement; Injunction; Jurisdiction; 
 Preliminary Injunctions; Sale; Suits; Use; Use- 
 fulness.) 
 
 LICENSE FEE. 
 (See Damages.) 
 
 LICENSEE. 
 (See License.) 
 
 LIMITATIONS. 
 
 Acts of limitations. Vaughan v. East Tennessee, Virginia, and 
 
 Georgia Railroad, 11 Otf. Gaz. 789. 
 In patent suits. 
 
 No statute of limitations. Parker v. Hallock, 2 Fisher, 
 
 543. 
 State statutes. Collins v. Peebles, 2 Fisher, 541. 
 State statute is good plea. Parker v. Hawk, 2 Fisher, 58 ; 
 
 Rich V. Ricketts, 7 Blatch. 230. 
 State statute cannot be pleaded. Anthony v. Carroll, 9 
 Off. Gaz. 199 ; Read v. Rliller, 2 Bissell, 12 ; 3 Fisher, 
 310. 
 
 (See Penalty.) 
 
 LITIGATION. 
 (See Damages.) 
 
 LOCATION. 
 (See Patentability ; Want of Novelty.) 
 
 LOSS. 
 (See Damages.) 
 
 LOTTERY. 
 (See Jurisdiction.)
 
 220 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 MANDAMUS. 
 
 When it will lie. Commissioner of Patents v. Whitely, 4- Wall. 
 
 522. 
 To Commissioner of Patents by Supreme Court of District of 
 
 Columbia. Mason v. Rowley, 3 A. L. T. (U. S.) R. 8. 
 (See Commissioner ; Nkw Tkial; Repeal.) 
 
 MASTER. 
 Attachment for his fees. Myers v. Dunbar, 8 Off. Gaz. 321. 
 Applies principles laid down by court. Turrill v. Illinois Cen- 
 tral Railroad, 5 Bissell, 344. 
 May examine books, &c. Brady v. Atlantic Works, 15 Off. Gaz. 
 
 .965. 
 Evidence before, dividing royalties. Kendrick v. Emmons, 15 
 
 Off. Gaz. 966. 
 Fees of. Doughty v. West, Bradley, and Cary Manufacturing 
 
 Co., 4 Fisher, 518. 
 Hearings on reference. Doughty v. AVest, Bradley, and Cary 
 
 Manufacturing Co., 4 Fisher, 318. 
 Reference to. Packet Co. r. Sickles, 19 Wall. 611. 
 Reference to, is not res adjudicatce. Rumford Chemical Works 
 
 V. Hecker, 11 Off. Gaz. 330. 
 Should hand in a report, not file papers on the docket. Union 
 
 Sugar Refinery v. Matthieson, 3 Cliff. 146. 
 
 (See Costs; Damages; Injunction; Issue.) 
 
 MASTER'S REPORT. 
 
 Exceptions. Black v. Munsen, 14 Blatch. 265. 
 
 Exceptions to ruling must be made at the time. Troy Iron and 
 
 Nail Factory v. Corning, 6 Blatch. 328; 3 Fisher, 497. 
 Finding of facts. Piper v. Brown, 1 Holmes, 196; 6 Fisher, 
 
 240; 3 Off. Gaz. 97. 
 Suspension of decree till Master reports. Whitney v. Mowry, 2 
 
 Bond, 45; 3 Fisher, 157. 
 
 (See Appeal.) 
 
 MATERIAL. 
 (See Patentability; Want op Novelty.)
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 221 
 
 MECHANICS. 
 (See Experts ; Uncertainty.) 
 
 MEDICINE. 
 
 Practice must be according to State law. Jordan v. Dayton, 4 
 Ohio, 295; Smith v. Tracy, 2 Hall (N. Y.),465; Thompson 
 V. Staats, 15 AVend. (X. Y.) 395. 
 
 MEMORY. 
 (See Evidence.) 
 
 MISCHIEF. 
 
 (See Injunction.) 
 
 MISJOINDER. 
 (See Parties ; Pleading.) 
 
 MISNOMER. 
 
 (See Note ; Patent.) 
 
 MISREPRESENTATIONS. 
 (See Contract.) 
 
 MISTAKE. 
 
 (See Disclaimer ; Drawing ; Equity ; Rehearing; 
 Reissue.) 
 
 MODE OF OPERATION. 
 (See Infringement.) 
 
 MODELS. 
 (See Costs; Reissue; Want of Novelty.)
 
 222 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 MONEY. 
 
 Paid into court and claimed by both parties. Florence Sewing 
 Machine Co. v. Singer Sewing Machine Co., 8 Blatch. 177; 
 4 Fisher, 348. 
 
 Deposited for articles prescribed by government not recoverable. 
 Nusbamn v. Emery, 3 Bissell, 469. 
 
 (See Contract; Suits.) 
 
 MONOPOLY. 
 
 (See CoNSTRUCTiox OF Patents; Sale.) 
 
 MORTGAGE. 
 
 Chattel. Boston and Fair Haven lion Works r. Montague, 108 
 
 Mass. 248. 
 Foreclosure. Boston and Fair Haven Iron Works v. Montague, 
 
 108 Mass. 248; Pacific Iron Works v. Newhall, 34 Conn. 67. 
 
 MOTIONS. 
 
 To dismiss. Chaffee v. Hay ward, 20 How. 208. 
 For trial at law, when granted. Howe v. Williams, 2 Fisher, 
 395. 
 
 MULTIFARIOUSNESS. 
 
 (See Pleading.) 
 
 NEGLECT. 
 
 (See Abandonment; License.) 
 
 NEGLIGENCE. 
 (See Disclaimer ; Laches ; Preliminary Injunctions.) 
 
 NEGOTIATIONS. 
 
 (See Contract.) 
 
 NEW TRIAL. 
 Action at law. Carr i;. Rice, 4 Blatch. 200; 1 Fisher, 325.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 223 
 
 Verdict against evidence. Aiken v. Bemis, 3 W. & M. 348 ; 2 
 Robb. 644 ; Allen v. Blunt, 2 W. & M. 121 ; 2 Robb, 
 530; Ames v. Howard, 1 Sunin. 482; 1 Robb, 689; 
 Blanchard Gunstock Factory v. Jacobs, 2 Blatch. 69 ; 
 Bray v. Hartsliorn, 1 Cliif. 538; Gray v. James, Peters, 
 C. C. 476 : 1 Robb, 140 ; Roberts v. Schuyler, 12 Blatch. 
 444 ; Wilson v. Janes, 3 Blatch. 227. 
 Preponderance must be clear. Brooks i>. Bicknell, 4 Mc- 
 Lean, 70. 
 Not if evidence conflicts. Stanley v. Whipple, 2 IMcLean, 
 35; 2 Robb, 1. 
 Excessive damages. Alden v. Dewey, 1 Story, 336; 2 Robb, 17. 
 Rejection of evidence. Buck v. Hermance, 1 Blatch. 322. 
 Erroneous instruction on damages. Cowing v. Rumsey, 8 
 
 Blatch. 36; 4 Fi.sher, 275. 
 Jurisdiction. Allen v. Blunt, 1 Blatch. 480. 
 Jury misunderstanding the court. Sherman v. Champlain Trans- 
 portation Co., 31 Vt. 162. 
 Mandate, judgment still unreversed. Evans r. Eaton, Peters, 
 
 C. C. 322; 1 Robb, 193. 
 Ruling of court. 
 
 That printed publications must be before invention, not 
 application. Bartholomew v. Sawyer, 4 Blatch. 347; 
 1 Fisher, 516. 
 On existence of corporations. Blanchard Gunstock Fac- 
 tory V. Warner, 1 Blatch. 258. 
 Jury being waived. Carver v. Braintree Manufacturing 
 Co., 2 Story, 432; 2 Robb, 441. 
 Surprise and new evidence. Foote v. Silsby, 1 Blatch. 445. 
 Surprise, reasonable diligence. Washburn v. Gould, 3 Story, 
 
 122; 2 Robb, 206. 
 Court sustaining the patent. Bennett v. Fowler, 8 Wall. 445; 
 Blake v. Stafford, 6 Blatch. 195; 3 Fisher, 295. 
 (See Prf,limix.\ky Injunctions.) 
 
 NOMINAL. 
 (See Damages.) 
 
 NONJOINDER. 
 (See Pauties.)
 
 224 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 NONSUIT. 
 
 Only by consent of plaintiff. Silsby v. Foote, 14 How. 218; 
 
 Sone V. Palmer, 28 Mo. 539. 
 Power to order. Foote v. Silsby, 1 Blatch. 445. 
 Variance. Aiken v. Bemis, 3 W. & M. 348; 2 Robb, 644; 
 
 Tryon v. White, 1 Robb, 64. 
 
 NOTARY. 
 
 Powers of. Buerk v. Imhauser, 10 Off. Gaz. 907. 
 
 Seal of. Goodyear v. Hulliheu, 2 Hughes, 492; 3 Fisher, 251. 
 
 NOTE. 
 Consideration. 
 
 Void patent is a defense. Bierce v. Stocking, 11 Gray 
 
 (Mass.), 174; Bliss v. Negus, 8 Mass. 46; Cowan v. 
 
 Mitchell, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 87; Cragin v. Fowler, 34 
 
 Vt. 326; Darst v. Brockway, 11 Ohio, 462; Dickinson 
 
 V. Hall, 14 Pick. 217; Earl v. Page, 6 N. H. 477; 
 
 Elmer v. Peuuel, 40 Me. 430; First National Bank v. 
 
 Peck, 8 Kansas, 600. 
 Sealed. Geiger v. Cook, 3 W. & S. (Penn.) 266; Lester 
 
 V. Palmer, 4 Allen (Mass.), 145; Midkiff v. Boggess, 
 
 15 Ind. 210; Peck v. Farrington, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 44; 
 
 Rowe V. Blanchard, 18 Wise. 441 ; Scott v. Sweet, 2 
 
 G. Greene (Iowa), 224. 
 Not a good defense, without fraud. Cowan v. Dodd, 3 
 
 Cold. (Tenn.) 278; Jones v. Burnham, 67 Me. 93; 
 
 Williams v. Hicks, 2 Vt. 36. 
 Revenue. Davy v. Morgan, 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 218. 
 Misnomer of invention in conveyance. Harmon v. Bird, 22 
 
 AVend. 113. 
 False representations. Johnson v. McCabe, 37 Ind. 535; 
 
 Page V. Dickerson, 28 Wise. 694. 
 Assignment not recorded, so no title in seller. Mulliken v. 
 
 Latchem, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 136. 
 Indorsement by payee. Saxton v. Dodge, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 
 
 84. 
 Lack of title, admissibility. Stevens v. Head, 9 Vt. 174.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 225 
 
 Consideration — continued. 
 
 Worthless patent not admissible under general issue. Wil- 
 liams V. Hicks, 2 Vt. 36. 
 Failure of consideration, reassignment of half -interest. Clark 
 
 V. Smith, 21 Minn. 539. 
 Defense of false representations. Groff v. Hansel, 33 Md. 161 ; 
 
 Rose V. Hurley, 39 Ind. 77; Van Ostrand v. Reed, 1 Wend. 
 
 (N. Y.) 424. 
 Fraud. Burns v. Barnes, 58 Ind, 438; Lane v. Smith, 68 Me. 
 
 178. 
 Receiving void notes as agent, for machines sold. Osborn v, 
 
 Herron, 28 Ga. 313. 
 Wlien note is equivalent to payment. Van Ostrand v. Reed, 1 
 
 Wend. (N. Y.) 424. 
 Ohio law on negotiable notes for patents. State v. Brov^-er, 30 
 
 Ohio St. 101 ; State v. Peck, 25 Ohio St. 26. 
 Warranty. Hawes v. Twogood, 12 Iowa, 582; McClure v. 
 
 Jeffrey, 8 Ind. 79; Street v. Silver, Brightly (Penn.), 96. 
 Want of Xovelty. Butch v. Boyer, 8 Phila. (Penn.) 57. 
 
 (See Contract ; Estoppel ; Evidence ; Patent ; 
 Pleading.) 
 
 NOTICE. 
 
 (See Cross-bill; Defense; Evidence; Injunction; In- 
 ventor; Pleading; Preliminary Injunctions ; Prior 
 Knowledge; Prior Use; Suits; Witnesses.) 
 
 XOVELTY. 
 (See Definition ; Extension ; Want of Novelty.) 
 
 OATH. 
 
 (See Alien; Bill; Inventor; Practice; Reissue; 
 Validity.) 
 
 OBJECTIONS. 
 
 (See Pleading ; Reissue; Witnesses.) 
 
 15
 
 226 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 OHIO LAW. 
 (See Assignment; Note.) 
 
 OMISSION. 
 (See Publications ; Reissue; Uncertainty.) 
 
 ORIGINAL INVENTOR. 
 
 Patent jonma /aci'e evidence. (Almost everywhere.) 
 Abandoned experiments. Stainthorp v. Elkinton, 1 Fisher, 349. 
 Suggestions. Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. 583. 
 Outgrowth belongs to originator of conception. Blandy v. 
 
 Griffeth, 3 Fisher, 609. 
 Fraud. Brady v. Atlantic Works, 10 Off. Gaz. 702. 
 French patents. Brooks v. Norcross, 2 Fisher, 661. 
 Utility as evidence. Buchanan v. Howland, 5 Blatch. 151; 2 
 
 Fisher, 341. 
 Race of diligence. Johnson v. Root, 1 Fisher, 351. ' 
 Suggestions. Matthews v. Skates, 1 Fisher, 602. 
 Information obtained from scientific men. Oreilly v. Morse, 15 
 
 How. 62. 
 Under provisions of jiatent law. Pitts v. Hall, 2 Blatch. 229. 
 Must be so for the whole world. Sewall v. Jones, 1 Otto, 171 ; 
 
 9 Off. Gaz. 47. 
 Effect of suggestions. Slemmer's Appeal, 58 Penn. St. 155. 
 Utility as a test. Stanley Works v. Sargent & Co., 8 Blatch. 
 
 344; 4 Fisher, 443. 
 Fact must be sworn to in bill. Sullivan v. Redfield, 1 Paine, 
 
 441 ; 1 Robb, 477. 
 Suggestions. Thomas v. Weeks, 2 Paine, 92. 
 Burden of proof. Tompkins v. Gage, 5 Blatch. 269; 2 Fisher, 
 
 577. 
 Prior patent by same inventor for same invention. Treadwell v. 
 
 Bladen, 4 Wash. 703; 1 Robb, 531. 
 Practicability in view of state of art. Treadwell v. Parrott, 5 
 
 Blatch. 370; 3 Fisher, 124. 
 Patent suiTeptitiously obtained. Union Paper Bag Machine 
 
 Co. V. Pultz and Walkley Co., 15 Off. Gaz. 423.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 227 
 
 State of the art. United Nickel Co. v. Keith, 1 Holmes, 328; 
 
 5 Off. Gaz. 272. 
 Prior invention must be useful. Waterman v. Thompson, 2 
 
 Fisher, 461. 
 Who "first inventor" is. Wliite v. Allen, 2 Cliff. 224; 2 
 
 Fisher, 440. 
 How far presumption from issue of patent extends. Wing v. 
 
 Richardson, 2 Cliff. 449; 2 Fisher, 535. 
 State of the art. Wing v. Schoonmaker, 8 Fisher, 607. 
 (See Abandoned Experiments.) 
 
 OUTGROWTH. 
 (See OuiGiNAL Inventor.) 
 
 OYER. 
 (See Patent.) 
 
 PAPERS. 
 (See Contract; Practice.) 
 
 PART. 
 (See Infringement ; Inventor; Patent; Reissue.) 
 
 PARTIES. 
 
 Party "aggrieved" in statute. Ilussey v. Whitely, 1 Bond, 
 407; 2 Fisher, 120. 
 
 To bill, who are proper. Goodyear v. Hills, 3 Fisher, 134; 
 Goodj-ear v. Hullihen, 2 Hughes, 492; 3 Fisher, 251 ; Good- 
 year V. New Jersey Central Railroad, 2 WaU. Jr., 356 ; 1 
 Fisher, 626. 
 
 Defendants. Nichols v. Pearce, 7 Blatch. 5. 
 
 Executors. Goodyear v. Providence Rubber Co., 2 Cliff. 351; 2 
 Fisher, 499. 
 
 Joinder of parties. Buck v. Cobb, 9 Law Rep. 545, 
 
 Misjoinder. Dorsey Revolving Harvester Rake Co. v. Bradley 
 Manufacturing Co., 12 Blatch. 202.
 
 228 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Misjoinder — continued. 
 
 Of plaintiffs. Goodyear v. Allyn, 6 Blatch. 33; 3 Fisher, 
 374. 
 
 Of plaintiifs, how taken advantage of. Hodge v. Iron 
 Mountain Raih'oad, 4 Fisher, 161. 
 
 Too late after decree. Livingston v. Woodworth, 15 How. 
 546. 
 
 Of defendants. Stimpson v. Rogers, 4 Blatch. 333. 
 Nonjoinder. Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co., 2 Cliff. 379; Grover 
 
 and Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Sloat, 2 Fisher, 112; 
 
 Henry v. Francistown Soapstone Stove Co., 9 Off. Gaz. 
 
 408; Potter v. Wilson, 2 Fisher, 102. 
 Want of. Aultman y. Holley, 11 Blatch. 317; 6 Fisher, 534; 
 
 5 Off. Gaz. 3; Sanford v. Messer, 1 Holmes, 149; 5 Fisher, 
 
 411; 2 Off. Gaz. 470. 
 As witnesses. Blanchard v. Sprague, 1 Cliff. 288; Buck v. 
 
 Hermance, 1 Blatch. 322; Foote v. Silsby, 3 Blatch. 507; 
 
 Kendall v. Winsor, 6 R. I. 453. 
 (See Allegation; Assignment; Cross-Bill; Jurisdiction; 
 Pleading.) 
 
 PARTNERS. 
 
 Authority of. Heilner v. Battin, 27 Penn. St. 517. 
 Partnership suit does not abate by death of one partner. Troy 
 
 Iron and Nail Factory v. Winslow, 11 Blatch. 513. 
 Representatives of deceased partner cannot be sued unless firm 
 
 is insolvent. Troy Iron and Nail Factory v. Winslow, 11 
 
 Blatch. 513. 
 Patent refused to firm, but granted to partner, belongs to firm. 
 
 Vetter v. Leutzinger, 31 Iowa, 182. 
 
 (See Joint Owners; Patent.) 
 
 PAST INFRINGEMENT. 
 (See Preliminary Injunctions.) 
 
 PATENT. 
 To administrators. Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co. v. 
 Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co., 6 Off. Gaz. 34.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 229 
 
 Bad for ambiguity. Bray v. Hartshorn, 1 Cliff. 538. 
 
 Before board of examiners was made. Burr v. Duryee, 2 
 
 Fisher, 275. 
 Clauns, too large. Cross v. Huntly, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 385; 
 Davis V. Bell, 8 N. H. 500. 
 
 Void pi-o tanto under act of 1837. Peterson c. Wooden, 3 
 McLean, 248. 
 For combinations. Holliday v. Rheem, 18 Penn. St. 465; 
 Latta V. Shawk, 1 Bond, 259; 1 Fisher, 465. 
 
 Only infringed by same combination. McCormick v. Tal- 
 cott, 20 How. 402. 
 Is contract of government. Ransom v. Mayor of New York, 4 
 
 Blatch. l.-^7; 1 Fisher, 252. 
 Copies, refusal by Commissioner to furnish, is indefensible. 
 
 Boyden v. Burke, 14 How. 575. 
 What th^y can cover. Smith v. Downing, 1 Fisher, 64. 
 
 Extent of one. Bennet v. Fowler, 8 Wall. 445. 
 
 Several inventions in one patent. Emerson v. Hogg, 2 
 Blatch. 1. 
 
 One pate)it cannot cover two distinct machines. Root v. 
 Ball, 4 McLean, 177; 2 Robb, 513. 
 Is creature of statute. Moffitt v. Gaar, 1 Bond, 315; 1 Fisher, 
 
 610; Morton v. New York Eye Infirmary, 5 Blatch. 116 ; 2 
 
 Fisher, 320. 
 Date of. Johnson r. Fassman, 1 Woods, 138; 5 Fisher, 471; 
 
 2 Off. Gaz. 94. 
 Duration. Congress has exclusive power to limit. Evans v. 
 
 Robinson, 1 Car. L. R. (N. C.) 209. 
 Who are entitled to. Carr v. Rice, 1 Fisher, 198; Dunbar v. 
 
 Myers, 4 Otto, 187; 11 Off. Gaz. 35; Odiorne v. Winkley, 
 
 2 Gall. 51; 1 Robb, 52; Reed v. Cutter, 1 Story, 590; 2 
 
 Robb, 81; Rice v. Heald, 13 Pac. L. R. 33; Washburn v. 
 
 Gould, 3 Story, 122; 2 Robb, 206. 
 Expiration is last hour of day. Johnson i'. McCulloch, 4 Fisher, 
 
 170. 
 Expired patents. Nevins v. Johnson, 3 Blatch. 80. 
 What they are. Hayden v. Suffolk Manufacturing Co., 4 Fisher, 86. 
 What they are for. Burr i-. Duryee, 1 Wall. 531 ; CoUender v. 
 
 Came, 10 Off. Gaz. 467; Piper v. Brown, 1 Holmes, 20; 4 
 
 Fisher, 175.
 
 230 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Granting must be according to law. Smith v. Ely, 5 McLean, 
 
 76. 
 May issue to executor on death of inventor. Stimpson v. 
 
 Rogers, 4 Blatch. 333. 
 For improvements. Chipman v. Wentworth, 1 Holmes, 96; 5 
 Fisher, 302; 2 Off. Gaz. 58; Foss v. Herbert, 1 Bissell, 
 121; 2 Fisher, 31; McCormick v. Manny, 6 McLean, 
 534; Wintermute v. Redington, 1 Fisher, 239. 
 
 Need not describe machine improved on. Ives v. Hamilton, 
 2 Otto, 426; 10 Off. Gaz. 336; Many v. Jagger, 1 
 Blatch. 372. 
 
 Not entitled to equivalents. McCormick v. Talcott, 20 
 How. 402. 
 Patent claiming several improvements is avoided by showing 
 
 one not original. Moody v. Fiske, 2 Mason, 112; 1 Robb, 
 
 312. 
 Two inventions in one patent. Lee v. Blandy, 1 Bond, 361; 
 
 2 Fisher, 89. 
 Joint patents. Barrett v. Hall, 1 Mason, 447; 1 Robb, 207. 
 Joint and sole for same invention. Crocker's Case, 2 A. L. 
 
 T. (U. S.) R. 129. 
 Junior and senior patents. Asbestos Felting Co. v. United 
 
 States and Foi-eign Salamander Felting Co., 13 Blatch. 453; 
 
 Colt V. Massachusetts Arms Co., 1 Fisher, 108. 
 Law of patents. Darst v. Brockway, 11 Ohio, 462. 
 In law and equity. Buchanan v. Howland, 2 Blatch. 151; 2 
 
 Fisher, 341. 
 Misnomer of one inventor in patent. Northwest Fire Extin- 
 guisher Co. V. Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co., 6 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 34. 
 Narrow grounds required by some patents. Rogers v. Ennis, 14 
 
 Off. Gaz. 601. 
 For impractical inventions. Seymour v. Marsh, 6 Fisher, 115; 
 
 9 Phila. 380; 2 Off. Gaz. 675. 
 No oyer of patents. Smith v. Ely, 5 McLean, 76. 
 For parts. Union Paper Bag Machine Co. v. Murphy, 7 Otto, 
 
 120; 13 Off. Gaz. 366. 
 Of partner belongs to firm. Remington v. Allen, 109 Mass. 
 
 47.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 231 
 
 Two patents for same invention not allowed at same time. 
 
 Odiorne v. Amesbury Xail Factory, 2 Mason, 28 ; 1 Robb, 
 
 300. 
 Prima facie evidence of what. Cahoon v. Ring, 1 Cliff. 592 ; 1 
 Fisher, 397. 
 
 That preliminaries were legally done. Gear v. Grosvenor, 
 1 Holmes, 215; 6 Fisher, 314; 3 Off. Gaz. 380. 
 For principle. Hitchcock v. Tremaine, 8 Blatch. 440; 4 Fisher, 
 
 508. 
 Prior patent not surrendered or repealed avoids present. Morris 
 
 V. Huntington, 1 Paine, 348; 1 Robb, 448. 
 Proceedings ex parte, weight of. Wilson v. Bamum, 1 Wall. Jr. 
 
 347 ; 2 Robb, 749. 
 For process. Goodyear v. New Jersey Central Railroad, 2 WaU. 
 
 Jr. 356; 1 Fisher, 626. 
 For process and product. Jones v. Sewall, 3 Cliff. 563; 6 
 
 Fisher, 343. 
 Profert of, makes part of declaration. Pitts v. Whitman, 2 
 
 Story, 609; 2 Robb, 189. 
 Proper subjects of. Pennsylvania Salt Co. v. Gugenheim, 3 
 
 Fisher, 423. 
 Protected by State courts. Hammer v. Barnes, 26 How. (X. Y.) 
 
 176. 
 Rejected patents, remedy. Hull v. Commissioner of Patents, 
 
 7 Off. Gaz. 559. 
 Rejected patents as evidence. Northwestern Fire Extinguisher 
 Co. V. Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co. , 6 Off. Gaz. 34. 
 
 Laches. United States Rifle, &c. Co. v. Whitney Arms 
 Co., 14 Blatch. 94; 11 Off. Gaz. 373. 
 State authority to use patented article. Greaton i;. Grifiin, 4 
 
 Abb. N. s. (N. Y.) 310. 
 State legislation on. Grover and Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. 
 
 Butler, 53 Ind. 452 ; Helm v. First National Bank, 43 Ind. 
 
 167. 
 Rights by statute only. Higgins v. Strong, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 182. 
 Cannot be subdivided. Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Whitney, 
 
 31 Leg. Int. 229. 
 Superseding a patent. Fuller v. Goodrich, 4 Otto, 299; 11 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 597.
 
 232 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Surreptitiously obtained. Hoeltze v. Hoeller, 2 Bond, 386 ; 
 Odiorne v. Winkley, 2 Gall. 51; 1 Robb, 52; Wood v. Wil- 
 liams, 1 Gilpin, 517; 1 Robb, 717. 
 
 Term of. Golf v. Stafford, 14 Off. Gaz. 748. 
 
 Title of, not conclusive. Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co. 
 V. Erie Railroad, 10 Blatch. 292 ; 6 Fisher, 187 ; 3 Ofe. Gaz. 
 93 ; Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co. v. Pennsylvania 
 Railroad, 6 Off. Gaz. 927. 
 
 Value of patents. Case v. Morey, 1 N. H. 347. 
 
 Void, sold by fraud. Ball v. Pratt, 1 Conn. 342. 
 
 (See Application; Art; Assignment; Commissioner; Con- 
 struction OF Patents; Contract; Costs; Injunction; 
 Invention; Inventor; Issue; Joint Owners; Origi- 
 nal Inventor ; Partners ; Reissues ; Suits ; Useful- 
 ness; Validity.) 
 
 PATENTABILITY. 
 
 Of " art." Roberts v. Dickey, 4 Fisher, 532; 1 Off. Gaz. 4. 
 Change of location. Gilbert and Barker Manufacturing Co. v. 
 Tirrell, 12 Blatch. 144; 8 Off. Gaz. 2. 
 New combination, new results. Gilbert and Barker Manu- 
 facturing Co, V. Walworth Manufacturing Co., 9 Off. 
 Gaz. 746. 
 Not patentable, what more is needed. Marsh v. Dodge and 
 Stevenson Manufacturing Co., 6 Fisher, 562; 5 Off. 
 • Gaz. 398. 
 Change of material not patentable. Putnam r. Yerrington, 9 
 
 Off. Gaz. 689. 
 Changes, producing new results. McComb v. Ernest, 1 Woods, 
 
 195. 
 Change, mere alteration. Smith v. Pearce, 2 McLean, 176; 2 
 
 Robb, 13. 
 Of combinations. Booth v. Parks, 6 Chicago Legal News, 407 ; 
 Smith V. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 3 Otto, 486 ; 
 11 Off. Gaz. 246; Union Sugar Refinery v. Matthieson, 
 3 Cliff. 639; 2 Fisher, 600; W^atson v. Cunningham, 4 
 Fisher, 528. 
 Aggregations. Sawin v. Hall, 9 Blatch. 524; 5 Fisher, 
 415; 1 Off. Gaz. 437.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 233 
 
 Of combinations — continued. 
 
 Of old elements with new results is patentable. Child v. 
 Boston and Fair Haven Iron Works, 1 Holmes, 303; 6 
 Fisher, 60G; 5 Off. Gaz. 61. 
 
 Old results with new method. Child v. Bo.ston and Fair 
 Haven Iron Works, 1 Holmes, 303; 6 Fisher, 606; 5 
 Off. Gaz. 01. 
 New combination of old elements. Crosby v. Lapouraille, 
 
 Taney, Dec. 374. 
 New combination w'ith new result. Gilbert and Barker ^lanu- 
 
 facturing Co. v. Walworth Manufacturing Co., 9 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 746; Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353 ; 5 Off. Gaz. 
 
 89. 
 Only what common-sense would suggest. Carter v. Messinger, 
 
 11 Blafcch. 34. 
 Effect or function not patentable. Must state means. Hoe v. 
 
 Simpson, 6 Off. Gaz. 435; Parham v. American Button- 
 hole, &c. Co., 4 Fisher, 468; Swain Turbine Co. v. Ladd, 
 
 11 Off. Gaz. 153. 
 Generally. Leroy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156 ; Providence Rub- 
 ber Co. V. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788 ; Sanford v. Merrimack 
 
 Hat Co., 10 Off." Gaz. 466. 
 Idea not patentable. Rubber Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 20 Wall. 
 498; 7 Off. Gaz. 172; Sickels v. Borden, 3 Blatch. 
 535. 
 
 Must be practical application. Detmold v. Reeves, 1 Fisher, 
 127. 
 Of improvements. McCormick v. Seymour, 3 Blatch. 209. 
 Improvement in plan of building jails not patentable. Jacobs 
 
 V. Baker, 7 Wall. 295. 
 Incompleteness. Reed v. Cutter, 1 Story, 590; 2 Robb, 81. 
 Inventive skill required. Poppenhusen v. Falke, 5 Blatch. 46 ; 
 
 2 Fisher, 213. 
 Old thing to new use. Bean v. Smallwood, 2 Robb, 133; 
 
 Meyer v. Pritchard, 12 Blatch. 101; 7 Off. Gaz. 1012; 
 
 Roberts v. Ryer, 1 Otto, 150 ; 10 Off. Gaz. 204. 
 Old process to new purpose. Brown v. Piper, 1 Otto, 37 ; 10 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 417. 
 Patent /jn'ma /aci'e evidence of. Adams i;. Edwards, 1 Fisher, 1.
 
 234 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Principle. 
 
 Embodied in condition to act is patentable. Andrews v. 
 
 Carman, 13 Blatch. 307. 
 Not patentable. Piper v. Brown, 1 Holmes, 20 ; 4 Fisher, 
 175: Smith v. Ely, 5 McLean, 76; Tilghman v. Werk, 
 2 Fisher, 229 ; Wintermute o. Redingtou, 1 Fisher, 
 239. 
 Product not patentable. AVooster v. Calhoun, 11 Blatch. 215 ; 
 
 6 Fisher, 514. 
 Purpose not patentable. Carver v. Hyde, 16 Peters, 513. 
 Is mixed question of law and fact. Teese v. Phelps, 1 Mc- 
 Allister, 17. 
 Result. 
 
 Not patentable. Fuller v. Yentzer, 4 Otto, 299; 11 Off. 
 Gaz. 597; Plowe v. Abbott, 2 Story, 190; 2 Robb, 
 99; Leroy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156; Marsh v. Dodge 
 and Stevenson Manufacturing Co. , 6 Fisher, 562 ; 5 
 Off. Gaz. 398; Reed v. Reed, 12 Blatch. 366; 8 Off. 
 Gaz. 193; Shaw and Wilcox Co. v. Lovejoy, 7 Blatch. 
 232; Wheeler v. Simpsou, 6 Off. Gaz. 435. 
 Not patentable, but important in improvements of old 
 
 devices. Hall v. Wiles, 2 Blatch. 194. 
 Difference in, patentable as showing difference in process. 
 Leroy v. Tatham, 22 How. 132; Sloat v. Patton, 1 
 Fisher, 154. 
 Old result by new process. Wood Paper Patent, 23 Wall. 
 566. 
 State of the art. Hill v. Houghton, 6 Off. Gaz. 3. 
 Suggestion not patentable. Graham v. Gammon, 7 Bissell, 49. 
 Shown by utility. Pennsylvania Salt Co. v. Thomas, 5 Fisher, 
 
 148. 
 
 (See Combination ; Patent.) 
 
 PATENT LAW. 
 
 (See Statute.) 
 
 PATENT OFFICE. 
 Action is conclusive. Cowan v. Mitchell, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 
 
 87.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 235 
 
 Proceedings prima facie valid. Wiiiaus v. Schenectady and 
 Troy Railroad, 2 Blatch. 279. 
 
 (See Ixterfekenck; Title.) 
 
 PAYMENT. 
 
 (See Contract; Defense; Note.) 
 
 PENALTY. 
 Patented articles not marked. Goodyear v. AUyn, 6 Blatch. 33; 
 3 Fisher, 374; McComb v. Brodie, 1 Woods, 153; 5 Fisher, 
 384; 2 Off. Gaz. 117. 
 Unpatented articles marked "patented." Nichols v. Newell, 1 
 Fisher, 647; United States v. Morris, 2 Bond, 23; 3 
 Fisher, 72. 
 Intent to deceive. "Walker v. Ilawxhurst, 5 Blatch. 494. 
 Limitations of bringing suits. Stimpson v. Pond, 2 Curtis, 
 502. 
 
 (See Discovery.) 
 
 PENDENCY OF SUIT. 
 (See Preliminary Injunctions.) 
 
 PERFORMANCE. 
 (See Contract; Preliminary Injunctions.) 
 
 PIRATED INVENTIONS. 
 (See Invention.) 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 Abatement, demurrer. Walter A. "Wood, &c. Co. v. CaldweU, 
 
 54 Ind. 270. 
 Admissibility of decree of United States courts. Hawks v. 
 
 Swett, 4 Hun (N. Y^), 146. 
 Allegation of fraud. Lindsay v. Roraback, 4 Jones, Eq. (N. C.) 
 
 124; Loudon v. Birt, 4 Ind. 566. 
 In bar. Smith v. Ely, 5 McLean, 76. 
 
 By special notice under general issue. Evans v. Kremer, 
 Peters, C. C. 215; 1 Robb, 66.
 
 236 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 No certificate of counsel with plea. Goodyear v. Toby, 6 Blatch. 
 
 130. 
 Clearness required in equity. Graham v. Mason, 5 Fisher, 1. 
 Consideration of note, statute. Domestic Sewing Machine Co. 
 
 V. Hatfield, 58 Ind. 187. 
 Duplicity, only one defense allowed in one plea. Reissner v. 
 
 Anness, 12 Off. Gaz. 842. 
 Formal objections. Goodyear v. Beverly Rubber Co., 1 Cliff. 348. 
 Hypothetical jjleas are bad. INIorse i'. Davis, 5 Blatch. 40. 
 Irregularity, filing two pleas without special leave. Wheeler v. 
 
 McCormick, 8 Blatch. 267; 4 Fisher, 433. 
 Judgment to be plea in bar must be direct on validity. Tyler v. 
 
 Hyde, 2 Blatch. 308. 
 Misjoinder of plaintiffs. Woodworth v. Cook, 2 Blatch. 151. 
 Multifariousness. Case i'. Redfield, 4 McLean, 526; 2 Robb, 
 741; Gillespie y. Cummings, 3 Sawyer, 259; Seymour 
 V. Osborne, 11 WaU. 516. 
 Several patents, all infringed by same machine. Nellis v. 
 McLanahan, 6 Fisher, 286; Nourse v. Allen, 4 Blatch. 
 376; 3 Fisher, 63. 
 Nonjoinder of parties. Wheeler v. McCormick, 11 Blatch. 334; 
 
 6 Fisher, 551 ; 4 Off. Gaz. 692. 
 Not guilty, what plaintiff must prove. Dixon v. Moyer, 4 Wash. 
 
 68; i Robb, 324. 
 Notice of special matter under general issue. Rees v. Gould, 
 6 Fisher, 106; 2 Off. Gaz. 624. 
 Thirty days. Teese v. Huntingdon, 23 How. 2; Union 
 Sugar Refinery v. Matthieson, 3 Cliff. 639; 2 Fisher, 
 600; Wilder v. Gaylor, 1 Blatch. 597. 
 Deficiency cannot be supplied by special plea. McCay v. 
 
 Burr, 6 Penn. St. 147. 
 Sufficiency. Silsby v. Foote, 14 How. 218. 
 Order, replication followed by testimony. Reissner i/. Anness, 
 
 13 Off. Gaz. 7. 
 Parties. Goodyear v. Toby, 6 Blatch. 130. 
 Pendency of other suit. Wheeler v. McCormick, 8 Blatch. 267; 
 
 4 Fisher, 433. 
 Prior use without abandonment is demurrable. Root v. Ball, 4 
 McLean, 177 ; 2 Robb, 513.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 237 
 
 Redundancy, reference to prior suit. Knox v. Great "Western 
 
 Quicksilver Mining Co., 3 Sawyer, 422; 14 OfE. Gaz. 897. 
 Special pleas under general issue. ]\Iorse i;. Davis, 5 Blatch. 
 40; Read v. Miller, 2 Bissell, 12; 3 Fisher, 310; 
 Wilder v. Gaylor, 1 Blatch. 597. 
 Right to. Phillips v. Combstock, 4 McLean, 353; 2 Robb, 
 
 724. 
 License without attacking validity. Day v. New England 
 Car Spring Co., 3 Blatch. 179. 
 Sufficiency, note. Kernodle v. Hunt, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) .57. 
 (See Demuruek; Juuisdiction ; Limitations; Parties; 
 Publication; Public Use; Want of Novelty.) 
 
 POPULARITY. 
 (See Usefulness.) 
 
 POSSESSION. 
 (See Injunction ; Preliminary Injunctions.) 
 
 POVERTY. 
 (See Abandonment; Assignment; Injunction.) 
 
 PRACTICE. 
 Sudden changes not desirable. Union Sugar Refinery v. Mat- 
 
 thieson, 3 Cliff. 14G. 
 Lregular oath of plaintiff. Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall. 429; 
 
 1 Robb, 28. 
 Irregular to file papers without leave of court. Union Sugar 
 Refinery v. Matthieson, 3 Cliff. 146. 
 
 (See Affidavits ; Preliminary Injunctions.) 
 
 PRELIMINARIES. 
 (See Patent.) 
 
 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS. 
 Abandonment and public use reserved for final hearing. Tap- 
 pan V. National Bank Note Co., 4 Blatch. 509; 2 Fisher, 
 195.
 
 238 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Acquiescence. American Shoe Tip Co. v. National Shoe Toe 
 Protector Co., 11 Off. Gaz. 740; Battin v. Silliman, 3 
 Wall. Jr. 124; Goodyear v. New Jersey Central Rail- 
 road, 2 Wall. Jr. 356; 1 Fisher, 626; Grover and 
 Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Williams, 2 Fisher, 133. 
 Mere lapse of time. Guidet v. Palmer, 10 Blatch. 217; 6 
 
 Fisher, 82 ; Potter v. Fuller, 2 Fisher, 251. 
 Under caveat. Sargent v. Seagrave, 2 Curtis, 553. 
 Ex parte affidavits. Grover and Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. 
 
 Williams, 2 P'isher, 132. 
 Verbal admission of infringement. Morse Fountain Pen Co. 
 V. Estei'brook Steel Pen Manufacturing Co., 3 Fisher, 515. 
 Assignment after granting, no ground for dissolving. Thomp- 
 son, &c. V. Barry, 2 Weekly Notes, 100. 
 Circumstances of parties, i-esponsibility of defendant. Morris 
 
 V. Lowell Manufacturing Co., 3 Fisher, 67. 
 Compel performance of agreements. Smith v. Cummings, 1 
 
 Fisher, 152. 
 Concealment by defendant. Union Paper Bag Machine Co. v. 
 
 Binney, 5 Fisher, 166. 
 Substantial controversy, effect of. Smith v. Cummings, 1 
 
 Fisher, 152. 
 Court, what bound to do. Parker v. Sears, 1 Fisher, 93. 
 
 How far into evidence it will go. Sickels v. Youngs, 3 
 Blatch. 293. 
 Decisions, prior. American Middlings Purifier Co. v. Chris- 
 tian, 4 Dillon, 448; Battin v. Silliman, 3 Wall. Jr. 
 124; Jones v. Merrill, 8 Off. Gaz. 401; Potter v. Fuller, 
 2 Fisher, 251. 
 Charge of collusion. American Middlings Purifier Co. v. 
 
 Atlantic Middlings Co., 4 Dillon, 100. 
 Entitle plaintiff to preliminary injunctions in absence of 
 testimony. Birdsell v. Hagerstown Agricultural Im- 
 plement Manufacturing Co., 6 Off. Gaz. 604. 
 Being numerous, only question is infringement. Blan- 
 chard v. Reeves, 1 Fisher, 103; Robertson v. Hill, 6 
 Fisher, 465; 4 Off. Gaz. 132. 
 If none, infringement must be clear. Burleigh Rock DriU 
 Co. V. Lobdell, 1 Holmes, 450; 7 Off. Gaz. 836; North 
 V. Kershaw, 4 Blatch. 70.
 
 SYNOPSIS OP LAW POINTS. 239 
 
 Decisions, prior — continued. 
 
 Entitle to preliminary injunction without further trial. 
 
 Chim V. Brewer, 2 Curtis, 50G. 
 Against practically same machine. Conover v. Mers, 3 
 
 Fisher, :38G. 
 Laches, (ioodyear r. Housinger, 2 Bissell, 1; 3 Fisher, 187. 
 And long use. Goodyear v. MuUee, 3 Fisher, 420. 
 if none, exclusive possession must be shown. Hockholzer 
 
 V. Eager, 2 Sawyer, 361. 
 None, single machine, refused, security for costs. Morris v. 
 
 Shelbui-ne, 8 Bhitch. 266; 4 Fisher, 377. 
 If verdict at law and infringement, injunction must issue. 
 
 Poppenhusen v. Falke, 4 Blatch. 493; 2 Fisher, ISI. 
 Ruling is not enough. Sargent Manufacturing Co. v. 
 
 Woodruff, 5 Bissell, 444. 
 Two failures at law to establish validity. Serrill v. Collins, 
 
 4 Blatch. 61. 
 Prior suit at law not necessary. Shelly v. Brannan, 2 Bis- 
 sell, 315; 4 Fisher, 198; Sickels v. Mitchell, 3 Blatch. 
 
 548; Weston v. White, 13 Blatch. 447. 
 Against same machine, weight of. Sickels v. Tileston, 4 
 
 Blatch. 109. 
 Writ of error pending. Wells i^. Gill, 2 Off. Gaz. 590. 
 Discretion of the court. Forbush o. Bradford, 1 Fisher, 317; 
 
 Irwin I). Dane, 2 Bissell, 442; 4 Fisher, 359. 
 Is appeal to discretion. Wells v. Gill, 2 Off. Gaz. 590. 
 Of United States courts. Yuengling v. Johnson, 1 Hughes, 
 
 607. 
 Doubt of infringement. Dodge v. Card, 1 Bond, 393; 2 Fisher, 
 
 116; Goodyear v. New Jersey Central Railroad, 2 Wall. 
 
 Jr. 356 ; 1 Fisher, 626. 
 Reasonable. Winans v. Eaton, 1 Fisher, 181. 
 Doubt of validity. Fales v. Wentworth, 1 Holmes, 96; 5 Fisher, 
 
 302; 2 Off. Gaz. 58. 
 Granted or not. 
 
 Not on theory unsupported by affidavits. American Dia- 
 mond Rock Boring Co. v. Sullivan Co,, 14 Blatch. 119. 
 Not, short time since reissue. Brown v. Hinkley, 6 Fisher, 
 
 370; 3 Off. Gaz. 384.
 
 240 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Granted or not — continued. 
 
 Denied because suit had been pending several months. 
 
 Andrews v. Spear, 4 Dillon, 472. 
 Granted without evasion if proper. Blanchard v. Reeves, 1 
 
 Fisher, 103. 
 Long en joynieut and clear infringement. Chase v. Wesson, 
 
 1 Holmes, 274; 6 Fisher, 517; 4 Off. Gaz. 476. 
 Denial of title no ground for refusing. Clum v. Brewer, 2 
 
 Curtis, 506. 
 Verdict at law, motion for new trial pending. Day v. 
 
 Hartshorn, 3 Fisher, 32. 
 When refused. Dorsey Revolving Harvester Rake Co. v. 
 
 Bradley Manufacturing Co., 12 Blatch. 202. 
 Short time to run, giving bonds for costs. Howe v. Morton, 
 
 1 Fisher, 586. 
 Damage to plaintiff if refused. Irwin v. Dane, 2 Bissell, 
 
 442; 4 Fisher, 359. 
 Not, where strong doubt of novelty. Jones v. Hodges, 1 
 
 Holmes, 37. 
 Short time since issue and slight proof of infringement. 
 
 Muscan Hair IManufacturing Co. v. American Hair 
 
 Maimfacturing Co., 4 Blatch. 174; 1 Fisher, 320. 
 Pendency of other suit, granted. Pennsylvania Salt Co. v. 
 
 Myers, 1 Weekly News, 377. 
 Plaintiff with patent, defendant without. Pentlarge v. 
 
 Beeston, 14 Blatch. 352. 
 Past infringements which cannot be renewed, no ground 
 
 for. Potter v. Crowell, 1 Abbott, 89; 3 Fisher, 112. 
 No laches of plaintiff, no injury to particular defendant, 
 
 granted. Rumford Chemical Works v. Vice, 14 Blatch. 
 
 179; 11 Off. Gaz. 600. 
 Discontinuance of infringement no answer. Sickels v. 
 
 Mitchell, 3 Blatch. 548. 
 General denial of validity no answer. Sickels v. Mitchell, 
 
 3 Blatcli. 548. 
 Refused. Defendant making for English government offers 
 
 to pay. Smith v. Rifle Co., 3 Blatch. 545. 
 Intimidation. Wilson Packing Co. v. Clapp, 13 Off. Gaz. 
 
 368.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 241 
 
 Injuiy. 
 
 Inconvenience to parties. Ilockholzer v. Eager, 2 Sawyer, 
 
 361. 
 To defendant. Howe r. Newton, 2 Fisher, 531; Potter v. 
 
 Fuller, 2 Fisher, 251. 
 Irreparable mischief. Morris r. Lowell Manufactui-ing Co. , 
 
 3 Fisher, 67; Sickels v. Youngs, 3 Blatch. 293. 
 Hardship on defendant. Parker v. Sears, 1 Fisher, 93. 
 
 License as a defense. Blake v. Greenwood Cemetery, 14 Blatch. 
 3i2; 13 Off. Gaz. 1046; Day v. New England Car 
 Spring Co., 3 Blatch. 154. 
 Violation of license by misapprehension. Wilson v. Sher- 
 man, 1 Blatch. 536. 
 Negligence. Hockholzer v. Eager, 2 Sawyer, 361. 
 
 By plaintiff in not preventing infringement. Jones v. 
 Merrill, 8 Off. Gaz. 401. 
 Notice of motion for. No longer required. Yuengling v. John- 
 son, 1 Hughes, 607. 
 Object of. 
 
 To keep things as they are till rights are in ve.sti gated. 
 American Xicolson Pavement Co. v. City of Elizabeth, 
 
 4 Fisher, 189; Day v. Boston Belting Co., 16 Law 
 Rep. 329. 
 
 Prevent future violations. Poppenhusen v. New York 
 Gutta-percha Comb Co., 4 Blatch. 184; 2 Fisher, 74. 
 Patent held by defendant is presumptive against infringement. 
 
 Sargent ^Manufacturing Co. v. Woodruff, 5 Bissell, 444. 
 Possession. 
 
 Undisturbed. Miller v. Androscoggin Pulp Co., 1 Holmes, 
 
 142; 5 Fisher, 340; 1 Off. Gaz. 409. 
 No fixed length. Potter v. Miller, 2 Fisher, 465. 
 With consumer's acquiescence. Sargent v. Carter, 1 Fisher, 277. 
 Length required. Sargent v. Seagrave, 2 Curtis, 553; Mus- 
 can Hair Manufacturing Co. v. American Hair Manu- 
 facturing Co., 4 Blatch. 174; 1 Fisher, 320. 
 Exclusive. Thomas v. Weeks, 2 Paine, 92. 
 Practice. Goodyear v. Hills, 3 Fisher, 134. 
 Prima facie right to, by eight years' exclusive use. Foster v. 
 Moore, 1 Curtis, 279. 
 
 16
 
 2i2 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Prior patent expired. Whitney v. RoUstone Machine Works, 
 
 8 Off. Gaz. 908. 
 Questions. 
 
 Of fact not easily settled on such motions. Wells v. Jacques, 
 5 Fisher, 136. 
 
 Originality and validity not gone into. Gibson v. Betts, 1 
 Blatch. 163. 
 
 Same in other courts. Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Good- 
 year, 13 Off. Gaz. 45. 
 Quiet enjoyment. Potter v. Holland, 4 Blatch. 238; 1 Fisher, 
 
 382. 
 Reasons for. Goodyear t\ Hullihen, 2 Hughes, 492; 3 Fisher, 
 
 251. 
 Sales by agent. Potter v. Crowell, 1 Abbott, 89 ; 3 Fisher, 112. 
 Title, peculiar circumstances. Potter v. Whitney, 1 Lowell, 
 
 87; 3 Fisher, 77. 
 Unsatisfactory evidence. Sykes v. Manhattan Elevator and 
 
 Grain Drying Co., 6 Blatch. 496. 
 Untested patents. Gear v. Holmes, 6 Fisher, 595. 
 Verdicts at law. Many v. Sizer, 1 Fisher, 31 ; Parker i\ Brant, 
 
 1 Fisher, 58 ; Poppenhusen v. New York Gutta-percha 
 
 Comb Co., 4 Blatch. 184; 2 Fisher, 74. 
 Validity established, feigned issues asked. Van Hook v. Pen- 
 dleton, 1 Blatch. 187. 
 
 (See Suits.) 
 
 PRESUMPTION. 
 
 (See Arbitrators ; Commissioner ; Construction of Pat- 
 ents; Invention; Original Inventor; Public Use; 
 Witnesses.) 
 
 PRICE. 
 (See Damages.) 
 
 PRINCIPLE. 
 
 (See Definition; Infringement; In.junction; Patent; 
 Patentability ; Public Use; Reissue.)
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 243 
 
 PRINTING. 
 
 (See Costs.) 
 
 PRIOR JUDGMENT. 
 
 Averment of in bill, when necessary. Blandy v. Griffeth, 3 
 
 Fisher, G09. 
 No Circuit Coirt is bound to follow decisions in otlier circuits. 
 
 Blake v. Robertson, G Off. Gaz. 297. 
 Decision of Supreme Court is final as to validity of patent. 
 
 Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 12 Off. Gaz. Oct. 
 
 2, i. 
 
 PRIOR KNOWLEDGE. 
 
 Amount of proof required. Cohn v. United States Corset Co., 
 
 12 Blatch. 225; 6 Off. Gaz. 2.59; Ilawes v. AntLsdel, 8 Off. 
 
 Gaz. G85. 
 Degree required. Elastic Fabrics Co. v. East Hampton Rubber 
 
 Thread Co., 9 Off. Gaz. 745. 
 Particularity of notice required. Smith v. Frayer, 5 Fisher, 
 
 543; 2 Off. Gaz. 175; Wilton v. The Railroads, 1 Wall. Jr. 
 
 192; 2 Robb, G41; Wise v. Allis, 9 Wall. 737. 
 Machine must be the same and not need modification. Cahoon 
 
 V. Ring, 1 Cliff. 592; 1 Fisher, 397. 
 Question of fact, burden of proof on defendant. Fisk v. 
 
 Church, 5 Fisher, 5i0; 1 Off. Gaz. 634. 
 Time of. Phillips v. Page, 24 How. 164. 
 And use. AVhitney v. Emmett, 1 Bald. 303; 1 Robb, 567. 
 
 PRIOR USE. 
 
 Abroad must be by printed publications. Jones v. Sewall, 3 
 
 Cliff. 5G3; 6 Fisher, 343. 
 Application, continuous in spite of adverse public use. Colgate 
 
 V. Western Union Telegraph Co., 14 Off". Gaz. 943!' 
 Attempts by employes to prove they were inventors. Child v. 
 
 Boston and Fair Haven Iron Works, 1 Holmes, 303; 6 
 
 Fisher, 60G; 5 Off. Gaz. 61. 
 Burden of proof. Roemer v. Simon, 5 Off. Gaz. 555.
 
 244 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Must be here, not in England. Dixon v. Moyer, 4 Wash. 68; 1 
 Eobb, 324. 
 Proof. Judson v. Cope, 1 Bond, 327 ; 1 Fisher, 615. 
 Extent. Reed v. Cutter, 1 Story, 590 ; 2 Robb, 81. 
 Foreign prior use. Roemer v. Simon, 5 OE. Gaz. 555. 
 Without knowledge of patentee, avoids his patent. Roemer v. 
 
 Simon, 5 Off. Gaz. 555. 
 Must be more than two years. Sisson v. Gilbert, 9 Blatch. 185 ; 
 
 5 Fisher, 109. 
 Notice of time and place. Judson v. Moore, 1 Bond, 285; 1 
 Fisher, 544. 
 Thirty days. Pickering v. Phillips, 10 Off. Gaz. 420. 
 Is peremptorily required. La Baw v. Hawkins, 6 Oft'. Gaz. 
 
 724. 
 That parties are unknown, amended nunc pro tunc. Roe- 
 mer V. Simon, 5 Otto, 214; 12 Off. Gaz. 796. 
 Prior invention is not prior use. Colt v. Massachusetts Arms 
 Co., 1 Fisher, 108. 
 
 (See Sale; Want of Novelty.) 
 
 PRIVATE USE. 
 (See Inventions ; Publications.) 
 
 PRIVITY. 
 
 (See Defendants.) 
 
 PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 (See Commissioner ; Court ; Patent.) 
 
 PROCESS. 
 
 (See Infringement ; Patent; Reissue; Repeal; Want of 
 *' Novelty.) 
 
 PRODUCT. 
 
 (See Infringement; Patent; Reissue; Want of 
 Novelty.)
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 245 
 
 PROFERT. 
 (See Patent.) 
 
 PROFITS. 
 (See Account; Bill; Damages; Definition.) 
 
 PUBLICATIONS (PRINTED). 
 
 Must be so clear as to leave uo reasonable doubt. Cohn v. 
 
 United States Corset Co., 12 Blatch. 22.5; 6 Off. Gaz. 259. 
 Must be clear of the thing, not the steps to it. Cohn v. United 
 
 States Corset Co., 3 Otto, 366 ; 11 Off. Gaz. 457. 
 Unless clear enough to anticipate is only evidence of state of 
 
 art. Geier v. Goetinger, 7 Off. Gaz. 563. 
 Must not be vague references but clear enough to construct. 
 
 Hays V. Sulsoi', 1 Bond, 279; 1 Fisher, 532. 
 Defense under general issue. Bates v. Coe, 8 Otto, 31 ; 15 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 337. 
 Knowledge derived must enable those skilled in that branch to 
 
 practise it. Goff v. Stafford, 14 Off. Gaz. 748. 
 How pleaded and proved. Kelleher v. Darling, 14 Off. Gaz. 
 
 673. 
 For private use. Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co., 5 Fisher, 456; 
 
 9 Phila. 368 ; 1 Off. Gaz. 466. 
 Must be prior to inccrUion not patent. City of Elizabeth v. 
 
 Pavement Co., 7 Otto, 126. 
 Omission of important element. Woodward v. Dinsmore, 4 
 
 Fisher, 163. 
 Put on same footing as patent of its date. Webb v. Quintard, 
 
 9 Blatch. 352; 5 Fisher, 276; 1 Off. Gaz. 525. 
 Substantial representation enough to construct. Seymour v. 
 
 Osborne, 11 Wall. 516. 
 Sufficient to give practical knowledge. Roberts v. Dickey, 4 
 
 Fisher, 532 ; 1 Off. Gaz. 4. 
 Pure theoiy not enough. National Filter Oil Co. v. Arctic Oil 
 
 Co., 4 Fisher, 514. 
 
 (See New Thial; PnioR Use.)
 
 246 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 PUBLIC OFFICER. 
 Acts of, record showing disregard of rules. Wliitely v. Swayne, 
 4 Fisher, 117. 
 
 (See Commissioner.) 
 
 PUBLIC USE FOR TWO YEARS. 
 
 Must be before date of application. Bell v. Daniels, 1 Bond, 
 212 ; 1 Fisher, 372 ; Singer v. Braunsdorf , 7 Blatch. 
 521. 
 First application. Blandy v. Griffeth, 3 Fisher, 609. 
 Consent of inventor. Egbert v. Lippman, 14 Off. Gaz. 822; 
 
 Melius V. Silsbee, 4 Mason, 108; 1 Robb, 506. 
 Burden of proof is on defendant. Crouch v. Roemer, 11 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 1112. 
 Doubt goes against defendants. Comstock v. Sandusky Seat 
 
 Co., 13 Off. Gaz. 230. 
 Not open under general issue. Kelleher v. Darling, 14 Off. Gaz. 
 
 673. 
 What is. 
 
 Use by one man for himself unknown to public is not. 
 
 Adams v. Edwards, 1 Fisher, 1. 
 Two years before patent but after application is not. 
 
 Adams v. Jones, 1 Fisher, 521. 
 What public and common use means. American Hide 
 and Leather Splitting, &c. Co. v. American Tool Co., 
 1 Holmes, 503; 4 Fisher, 284. 
 Honest public experimenting to test is not. American 
 Nicolson Pavement Co. v. City of Elizabeth, 4 Fisher, 
 189 ; 3 Off. Gaz. 522. 
 Rejected application, delay of ten years using it. Bevin v. 
 
 East Hampton Bell Co., 9 Blatch. 50. 
 Use in good faith to test is not. City of Elizabeth v. 
 
 Pavement Co., 7 Otto, 126. 
 Things made on same principle. Cleveland v. Towle, 3 
 
 Fisher, 525. 
 Actual extensive use. Consolidated' Fi-uit Jar Co. v. Wright, 
 
 12 Blatch. 149 ; 6 Off. Gaz. 327. 
 By patentee himself. Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Wright, 
 4 Otto, 92.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 247 
 
 What is — continued. 
 
 Waiting during experiments. Henry v. Francistown Soap- 
 stone Stove Co., 9 Off. Gaz. 408. 
 Two years' sale. Jones v. Sewall, 3 Cliff. 503; 6 Fisher, 
 843. 
 Presumption is in favor of patent. Brown v. Whittemore, 5 
 
 Fisher, 524 ; 2 Off. Gaz. 248. 
 Two years must be alleged, public use is not enough. Agawam 
 Co. V. Jordan, 7 Wall. 583. 
 
 (See Abandonment; Definition.) 
 
 PURCHASERS. 
 
 Bonajide. Pierson v. Eagle Screw Co., 3 Story, 402; 2 Robb, 
 268; Pitts v. Whitman, 2 Story, 609; 2 Robb, 189; United 
 States Annunciator Co. v. Sanderson, 3 Blatch. 184; Wood- 
 worth V. Cook, 2 Blatch. 151. 
 (See Assignment; Defense; Estoppel; Infringement; 
 Inventor; Sale; Suits.) 
 
 PURPOSE. 
 (See Infringement; Patentability.) 
 
 QUANTUM VALEBAXT. 
 
 For use of patented machines. Batten v. Kear, 2 Phila. (Penn.) 
 301. 
 
 (See Jurisdiction.) 
 
 QUESTIONS. 
 
 (See Jury; Preliminary In.junctions; Reissue; Uncer- 
 tainty; Witness.) 
 
 QUIA TIMET. 
 (See Bill.) 
 
 REASSIGNMENT. 
 (See Bill ; Contract; Note.)
 
 248 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 RECEIVER. 
 
 (See Corporation; Suits.) 
 
 RECORD. 
 
 (See Assignment; Disclaimer; License; Public Officer; 
 Title.) 
 
 RECOUPMENT. 
 (See Damages.) 
 
 REDUNDANCY. 
 
 (See Pleading.) 
 
 REFERENCE. 
 (See Master.) 
 
 REHEARING. 
 
 Because agreement to waive want of notice was not accepted by 
 
 court. American Saddle Co. v. Hogg, 1 Holmes, 177; 6 
 
 Fisher, 67; 2 Off. Gaz. 595. 
 To introduce testimony on statute of 1868 not known till after 
 
 decree. American Wood Paper Co. i\ Glen Falls Paper 
 
 Co., 8 Blatch. 513; 4 Fisher, 324. 
 For mistake, putting in wrong patent. Baldwin v. Schultz, 9 
 
 Blatch. 494; 5 Fisher, 75; 2 Off. Gaz. 317. 
 Newly discovered evidence. Hitchcock v. Tremaine, 9 Blatch. 
 
 550; 5 Fisher, 537; 1 Off. Gaz. 633; Reeves v. Keystone 
 
 Bridge Co., 9 Off. Gaz. 885. 
 Want of proper expert testimony. Hitchcock v. Tremaine, 9 
 
 Blatch. 550; 5 Fisher, 537; 1 Off'. Gaz. 633. 
 
 REISSUES. 
 
 To assignee of executor. Carew v. Boston Elastic Fabric Co., 
 1 Holmes, 45.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 249 
 
 To sectional assignees. Commissioner of Patents v. Whitely, 
 
 4 Wall. 522. 
 
 To assignee of assignee. Swift v. Whisen, 2 Bond, 115; 3 
 
 Fisher, 343. 
 Assignee's oath in lifetime of patentee. Whitely v. Swayne, 4 
 
 Fisher, 117. 
 Assignee's consent. Woodworth v. Stone, 3 Story, 749; 2 
 
 Robb, 296. 
 To administrators. Smith v. Mercer, 5 Penn. L. J. 529. 
 Antedating. Whitely v. Fisher, 4 Fisher, 248. 
 Authority to reissue. Parham v. American Button, &c. Co., 4 
 
 Fisher, 468. 
 Danger of. Bailey Washing, &c. Co. v. Lincoln, 4 Fisher, 
 
 379. 
 Date of. Hussey v. Bradley, 5 Blatch. 134; 2 Fisher, 362. 
 Defects remedied by. Stirapson v. West Chester Kaih'oad, 4 
 
 IIow. 380; 2 Robb, 335. 
 Defense under general issue. Bates v. Coe, 8 Otto, 31; 15 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 337. 
 And disclaimers. Schillinger v. Gunther, 14 Off. Gaz. 713. 
 Effect of. Forbes u. Barstow Stove Co., 2 Cliff. 379 ; Kelleher 
 
 V. Darling, 14 Off. Gaz. 673. 
 To executors. Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 AVall. 
 
 788. 
 Expiration. Whitely v. Fisher, 4 Fisher, 248. 
 Generally. Baldwin v. Schultz, 9 Blatch. 494 ; 5 Fisher, 75 ; 
 
 2 Off. Gaz. 317; Herring v. Gage, 14 Blatch. 293; 12 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 753; Marsh v. Seymour, 7 Otto, 348; 13 Off. Gaz. 723; 
 
 RusseU V. Dodge, 3 Otto, 460; 11 Off. Gaz. 151; Vogler v. 
 
 Semple, 11 Off. Gaz. 923. 
 Good, prima facie. Allen v. Blunt, 3 Story, 742; 2 Robb, 288; 
 
 Bantz V. Elsas, 6 Off. Gaz. 117; Poppeuhusen v. Falke, 4 
 
 Blatch. 493; 2 Fisher, 181. 
 Granting of. Carew v. Boston Elastic Fabric Co., 3 Cliff. 356; 
 
 5 Fisher, 90. 
 
 Incapacity of patentee. Jordan v. Wallace, 5 Fisher, 185. 
 Not for same invention. 
 
 May omit, but not add new matter. Albright v. Celluloid 
 Harness Trimming Co., 12 Off. Gaz. 227.
 
 250 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Not for same invention — continued. 
 
 Expanded to claim too much. American Middlings Puri- 
 fier Co. V. Atlantic Middlings Co., 15 Off. Gaz. 
 
 467. 
 Modification of opinion as to relative value of two modes. 
 
 American Nicolson Pavement Co. v. City of Elizabeth, 
 
 6 Fisher, 424 ; 3 Off. Gaz. 522. 
 Unless repugnant to original. Andrews v. Wright, 13 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 968. 
 Original for process, reissue for compound. Atlantic Giant 
 
 Powder Co. v. California Powder Works, 3 Sawyer, 
 
 448. 
 Must be for same invention. Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. 
 
 California Powder Works, 8 Otto, 126. 
 Proper tests to be applied. Aultmau v. HoUey, 11 Blatch. 
 
 317 ; 6 Fisher, 534; 5 Off. Gaz. 3. 
 Right to reissue in two divisions. Badische Anilin, &c. v. 
 
 Hamilton Manufacturing Co., 13 Oft". Gaz. 273. 
 Reissued to cover the whole invention is allowed. Badische 
 
 Anilin, &c. y. ' Hamilton Manufacturing Co., 14 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 414. 
 Fraud only open to government. Birdsell v. McDonald, 6 
 
 Off. Gaz. 682. 
 Can claim what is shown in model. Black v. Thorne, 10 
 
 Blatch. 66; 5 Fisher, 550; 2 Off. Gaz. 388. 
 Fraud. Blake v. Stafford, 6 Blatch. 195; 3 Fisher, 295. 
 Immaterial omissions. Boomer v. United Power Press Co., 
 
 13 Blatch. 107. 
 Granting not conclusive. Bridge v. Brown, 1 Holmes, 53; 
 
 6 Fisher, 236; 3 Off. Gaz. 121. 
 Is question of law. Bridge v. Brown, 1 Holmes, 53 ; 6 
 
 Fisher, 236; 3 Off. Gaz. 121. 
 Fraud on the public. Brooks v. Fiske, 15 How. 212. 
 Fraud. Brown v. Guild, 23 Wall. 181; 6 Off. Gaz. 392. 
 Claim cut down. Brown v. Selby, 2 Bissell, 457; 4 Fisher, 
 
 363. 
 Practice and frequency of reissues. Burr v. Duryee, 2 
 
 Fisher, 275. 
 Expansion of equivocal claims. Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. 531.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 251 
 
 Not for same invention — continued. 
 
 General rules and principles. Cahart v. Austin, 2 Cliff. 
 528; 2 Fisher, 54:3. 
 
 Described, but not claimed in original. Calkins v. Ber- 
 trand, 9 Off. Gaz. 795. 
 
 Ingenious attempts to expand simple into complex. Carl- 
 ton V. Bokee, G Fisher, 40. 
 
 General claims are caiefully scrutinized. Carlton v. Bokee, 
 17 Wall. 403 : 2 Off. Gaz. 520. 
 
 May omit, but not add new matter. Carver o. Braintree 
 Manufacturing Co., 2 Story, 438; 2 Robb, 141. 
 
 Question is. Is it in the original in any shape? Chicago 
 Fruit House Co. v. Busch, 2 Bissell, 472; 4 Fisher, 
 395. 
 
 Need not claim all that was claimed. Crompton v. Bel- 
 knap Mills, 3 Fisher, 536. 
 
 Expanded claims. Curtis v. Branch, 15 Off. Gaz. 919. 
 
 Mere matters of mechanical adaptation. Decker v. Grote, 
 10 Blatch. 331 ; 6 Fisher, 143; 3 Off. Gaz. 65. 
 
 Different application of invention, new forms, &c. De 
 Florey v. Raynolds, 14 Blatch. 505. 
 
 Original must be produced to substantiate the defense. 
 Doherty v. Ilaynes, 6 Off. Gaz. 118. 
 
 Indistinct descrij^tion in original. Dorsey Revolving Har- 
 vester Rake Co. v. Marsh, 6 Fisher, 387. 
 
 Omission is allowed in reissue. Dorsey Revolving Har- 
 vester Rake Co. v. Marsh, 6 Fisher, 387. 
 
 Better description. Draper v. Potomska Mills, 13 Off. Gaz. 
 276. 
 
 More claims in reissue. Fisher i-. Craig, 3 Sawyer, 69. 
 
 How far court will look into rei.ssues. Forsyth v. Clapp, 1 
 Holmes, 278; 6 Fi.sher, 528; 4 Off. Gaz. 527. 
 
 Difference in composition. Francis v. Mellor, 5 Fi.sher, 153; 
 1 Off. Gaz. 48. 
 
 Must be broader than original. French v. Rogers, 1 Fisher, 
 133. 
 
 Claiming separately what were conjointly. Gallahue v. 
 Butterfield, 10 Blatch. 232; 6 Fisher, 203; 2 Off. Gaz. 
 045.
 
 252 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Not for same invention — continued. 
 
 Claiming diiferent sliapes of same toy. Gong Bell Manu- 
 facturing Co. V. Clark, 13 Off. Gaz. 274. 
 Broader than original. Goodyear v. Berry, 2 Bond, 189; 
 
 3 Fisher, 439. 
 Claiming product and process separately. Goodyear v. 
 
 Providence Rubber Co., 2 Cliff. 351 ; 2 Fisher, 499. 
 Matter of legal construction. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite 
 
 Co. V. Smith, 1 Holmes, 354; 5 Off. Gaz. 585. 
 More specific directions. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. 
 
 V. Wetherbee, 2 Cliff. 555; 3 Fisher, 87. 
 Leaving out minor features. Gould v. Ballard, 13 Oft". Gaz. 
 
 1081. 
 In absence of fraud, only as matter of law. Graham v. 
 
 Mason, 5 Fisher, 1. 
 Presumed to be the same. Guidet i'. Barber, 5 Off. Gaz. 149. 
 Is question for jury. Heilner v. Battin, 27 Penn. St. 517. 
 For what is described or shown in original. Hoffheims v. 
 
 Brandt, 3 Fisher, 218. 
 Disclaimer by mistake in original. Hussey v. Bradley, 5 
 
 Blatch. 134 ; 2 Fisher, 362. 
 Legal presumption is in favor of the reissue. Hussey v. 
 
 McCormick, 1 Bissell, 300; 1 Fisher, 509. 
 Different drawing for reissue. Johnson v. Beard, 8 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 435. 
 After patent was declared void for want of novelty. Jones 
 
 V. McMurry, 2 Hughes, 527; 13 Off. Gaz. 6. 
 Can claim whatever is shown in drawings of original. 
 
 Kerosene Lamp, &c. Co. v. Littell, 13 Off. Gaz. 1009. 
 Fraud to cover more. Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron 
 
 Co., 5 Otto, 274; 12 Off. Gaz. 980. 
 Objection not taken in court below, so not open. Klein v. 
 
 Russell, 19 Wall. 433. 
 Inadvertence. Lorillard v. McDowell, 11 Off. Gaz. 640. 
 Apparent on face or not, state of art. Metropolitan Wash- 
 ing Machine Co. v. Providence Tool Co., 1 Holmes, 161. 
 Vagueness brought into reissue to conceal the invention. 
 
 Metropolitan Wringing Machine Co. i'. Young, 14 
 
 Blatch. 46.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 253 
 
 Not for same invention — continued. 
 
 Repugnancy to original. MiJdletown Tool Co. v. Judd, 3 
 
 Fisher, 111. 
 Combination changed. Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Co., 14 
 
 Blatch. 282; 12 Off. Gaz. 667. 
 Only open for fraud. Miller and Peters Manufacturing Co. 
 
 i^. Du Brul, 12 Off. Gaz. 351. 
 Granting of, is conclusive unless different on its face. Mil- 
 
 ligan and Iliggins Glue Co. v. Upton, 6 Off. Gaz. 837. 
 Broader claim hut .same invention. Morey v. Lockwood, 
 
 8 Wall. 230. 
 Strong legal presumption in its favor. Morris v. Eoger, 2 
 
 Bond, 66 ; 3 Fisher, 176. 
 By statute. National Car Spring Co. v. Union Car Spring 
 
 Co., 12 Blatch. 80; 6 Off. Gaz. 224. 
 Need not have the exact language of original. Pearl v. 
 
 Ocean Mills, 11 Off. Gaz. 2. 
 Subject-matter is important, not the title or description. 
 
 Pennsylvania Salt Co. u. Thomas, 5 Fisher, 148. 
 After adverse decisions, may be good. Poppenhusen v. 
 
 Falke, 5 Blatch. 46; 2 Fisher, 213. 
 What the provision means. Putnam v. Yerrington, 9 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 689. 
 Must be for same invention. Reedy v. Scott, 7 Off. Gaz. 
 
 463. 
 Features of model may be put into reissue. Reissner v. 
 
 Anness, 13 Off. Gaz. 870. 
 Putting in a comma. Robertson v. Secombe ]\Ianufactur- 
 
 ing Co , 10 Blatch. 481 ; 6 Fisher, 268; 3 Off. Gaz. 412. 
 Suggestions not found in original. Rogers v. Sargent, 7 
 
 Blatch. 507. 
 Outside evidence. Sarven v. Hall, 9 Blatch. 524; 5 Fisher, 
 
 415; 1 Off. Gaz. 437. 
 More methodically and clearly described. Searls v. Van 
 
 Nest, 13 Off. Gaz. 772. 
 Interpolation of new features. Seymour v. Osborne, 11 
 
 Wall. 516. 
 WTien its consistency with original is conclusive. Sickels 
 
 V. Evans, 2 Cliff. 203; 2 Fisher, 417.
 
 254 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Not for same invention — continued. 
 
 After fourteen years cannot claim any thing not specified. 
 
 Sickels V. Falls Co., 4 Blatch. 508; 2 Fisher, 202. 
 Defendant mnst overcome plaintiff's presumjDtion. Smith 
 
 V. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 3 Otto, 486; 11 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 24G. 
 Settled in prior cases on the same subject. Smith v. 
 
 Mercer, .5 Penn. L. J. .529. 
 New features. Stevens v. Pritchard, 10 Off. Gaz. 505. 
 Fraud. Swift v. Whisen, 2 Bond, 115; 3 Fisher, 343. 
 Under act of 1870, part not necessarily described. Tarr v. 
 
 Webb, 10 Blatch. 96; 5 Fisher, 593; 2 Off. Gaz. 568. 
 In general. Tucker v. Tucker Manufacturing Co., 10 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 464. 
 Combination may be subdivided in reissue. Turrell v. 
 
 Spaeth, 14 Off. Gaz. 377. 
 No repugnancy or introduction of new featui'es allowed. 
 
 Union Paper Collar Co. v. Leland, 1, Holmes, 427. 
 Question is, would claims in reissue be good in original. 
 
 Union Paper Collar Co. v. Van Deusen, 10 Blatch. 
 
 109; 5 Fisher, 597; 2 Off. Gaz. 361. 
 Reason for the rule. United States and Foreign Salamander 
 
 Felting Co. v. Haven, 3 Dillon, 131; 9 Off. Gaz. 
 
 253. 
 Cannot be made to cover any thing not in original. Vogler 
 
 r. Semple, 11 Off. Gaz. 923. 
 Decision of Commissioner not re-examinable. Wells v. 
 
 Gill, 2 Off. Gaz. 490. 
 Ambiguity. Westinghouse v. Gardner and Ransom Air 
 
 Brake Co., 9 Off. Gaz. 538. 
 Claiming the several parts separately. Wheeler v. Clipper 
 
 Mower, &c. Co., 10 Blatch. 181; 6 Fisher, 1; 2 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 442. 
 Fraud on the Patent Office. Whitely v. Swayne, 4 Fisher, 
 
 117. 
 Claiming what was abandoned in original. Wicks v. 
 
 Stevens, 2 Woods, 310. 
 Void for change in process. Wood Paper Patent, 23 Wall. 
 
 566.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 255 
 
 Not for same invention — continued. 
 
 Decision of Commissioner conclusive unless wrong on its 
 face. Woodworth v. Stone, 3 Story, 749 ; 2 Robb, 
 296. 
 Joining patentee is not necessary. Swift v. Whisen, 2 Bond, 
 
 115; 3 Fisher, 313. 
 Laches. Hiissey v. Bradley, 5 Blatch. 134; 2 Fisher, 362. 
 Nature of. 
 
 What they are, and what they must contain. Gill v. Wells, 
 
 22 Wall. 1. 
 Are not new patents. McBurney v. Goodyear, 11 Cush. 
 (Mass.) 569. 
 Without oath. Earth Closet Co. v. Fenner, 5 Fisher, 15. 
 Object of. 
 
 Is to cure defects. Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron 
 Co., 5 Otto, 274; 12 Off. Gaz. 980 ; Knight v. Balti- 
 more and Ohio Railroad, Taney, Dec. 106; 3 Fisher, 1; 
 Sarven v. Hall, 9 Blatch. 524 ; 5 Fisher, 415; 1 Off. 
 Gaz. 437; Schuessler v. Davis, 13 Ofi:. Gaz. 1011. 
 Too broad claims. Seymour v. Osborne, 3 Fisher, 555 ; 
 Union Paper Collar Co. v. White, 7 Off. Gaz. 698; 
 Westinghouse v. Gardner and Ransom Air Brake Co., 
 9 Off. Gaz. 538. 
 Of older patent is complete defense in absence of fraud. House 
 
 V. Young, 3 Fisher, 335. 
 Parol testimony in reissuing patents. Union Paper Collar Co. 
 
 V. Van Deusen, 23 Wall. 530. 
 To patentee after assignment. Wing v. Warren, 5 Fisher, 
 
 548; 2 Off. Gaz. 342. 
 Power of Commissioner. Whitely v. Fisher, 4 Fisher, 248. 
 Power of Secretary of State to accept surrender and reissue. 
 
 Grant v. Raymond, 6 Peters, 218 ; 1 Robb, 604. 
 Prima facie valid. House v. Young, 3 Fisher, 335; Phila- 
 delphia and Trenton Railroad v. Stimpson, 14 Peters, 448; 
 2 Robb, 46; Stevens v. Pritchard, 10 Off. Gaz. 505. 
 Relate back to original. Shaw v. Cooper, 7 Peters, 29 ; 1 Robb, 
 643; Stanley i'. Whipple, 2 McLean, 35; 2 Robb, 1; Wood- 
 worth V. Hall, 1 W. & M. 248; 2 Robb, 495. 
 Res adjudicata. Whitely v. Fisher, 4 Fisher, 248.
 
 256 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Right to. Conklin v. Stafford, 5 Off. Gaz. 235; Platts, Ex 
 parte, 15 Off. Gaz. 827; Potter v. Holland, 4 Blatch. 
 206; 1 Fisher, 327; Read v. Bowman, 2 Wall. 591. 
 English law. Shaw v. Cooper, 7 Peters, 29; 1 Robb, 643. 
 
 Scope of. Seymour v. Marsh, 2 Off. Gaz. 675. 
 
 Several reissues of one patent. French v. Rogers, 1 Fisher, 133; 
 Goodyear v. Wait, 5 Blatch. 418; 3 Fisher, 242; Morse v. 
 Bain, 9 West. L. J. 106; Wheeler i'. McCormick, 11 Blatch. 
 334; 6 Fisher, 551; 4 Off. Gaz. 692. 
 
 "Substantially as described," is implied. Westinghouse v. 
 Gardner and Ransom Air Brake Co., 9 Off. Gaz. 538. 
 
 Title of plaintiff is ^n'ma facie good. Middletown Tool Co. v. 
 Judd, 3 Fisher, 141. 
 
 Validity of, generally. Grosjean v. Peck, Stow, &c. Co., 11 
 Blatch. 54; Woodward v. Diusmore, 4 Fisher, 163. 
 
 (See Abandonment; Appeal; Assignee; Commissioner; 
 Contract; Drawing; Extension; Infringement; In- 
 junction; Interference; Renewal; Title.) 
 
 REJECTION. 
 (See Application; Assignment; Patent.) 
 
 RELEASE. 
 (See Injunction.) 
 
 REMEDY. 
 
 (See Contract; Equity; Infringement; Injunction; 
 Jurisdiction; Patent.) 
 
 REMOVAL. 
 
 (See Suits.) 
 
 RENEWAL. 
 
 "VVIiat it is. Wilson v. Turner, Taney, Dec. 278. 
 Means "extension," not "reissue." Day v. Cary, 1 Fisher, 
 424; Goodyear v. Cary, 4 Blatch. 271. 
 (See Extension.)
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 257 
 
 REPEAL OF PATENTS. 
 
 Application to repeal. McGaw v. Bryan, 1 U. S. L. J. 582. 
 Bill to vacate must appear to be by District Attorney. United 
 
 States ex rel. West v. Doughty, 7 Blatch. 42i. 
 Extension already expired. Bourne v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 811. 
 False suggestions. Delano v. Scott, 1 Gilpin, 489; 1 Robb, 
 
 700. 
 Government alone can vacate. Mo wry t'. Whitney, 14 Wall. 
 
 434; 5 Fisher, 513; 1 Off. Gaz. 499. 
 Issued to wrong man. Appleton r. Bacon, 2 Black, 699. 
 Mandamus, scii-e facias, matters of record. Wood, Ex parte, 9 
 
 Wheat. 603 ; 1 Robb, 438. 
 Power of court. Foster r. Lindsay, 7 Off. Gaz. 514; Foster v. 
 
 Lindsay, 8 Off. Gaz. 1032. 
 Process to repeal. Wood v. Williams, 1 Gilpin, 517; 1 Robb, 
 
 717. 
 Proper way, to vacate. Attorney-General v. Rumford Chemical 
 
 Works, 9 Off. Gaz. 1062. 
 
 (See JuRiSDiCTiox; Patext ; Suits.) 
 
 REPLEVIN. 
 
 Aveiy V. Bushnell, 123 Mass. 349. 
 
 REPLICATION. 
 (See Pleading.) 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 (See Master's Report.) 
 
 REPRESENTATIVES. 
 (See Partners.) 
 
 RES ADJUDICATA. 
 
 (See Decree; Master; Reissue.) 
 17
 
 258 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 RESCISSION. 
 
 (See Contract.) 
 
 RESTORATION. 
 (See Invkntion.) 
 
 RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 
 (See CoxTKACT ; Estoppel.) 
 
 RESTRICTION. 
 
 (See Assignment.) 
 
 RESULT. 
 
 (See Construction of Patents; Infringement; Patent- 
 ability.) . ^ 
 
 REVIEW. 
 (See Bill; Supplemental Bills.) 
 
 REVISION. 
 (See Interlocutory Orders.) 
 
 REVIVOR. 
 (See Bill; Suits; Surrender.) 
 
 RIGHTS. 
 
 (See Assignee; Assignment; Contract; Damages; In- 
 ventor; Joint Owners ; License.) 
 
 ROYALTY. 
 
 (See Administrator; Contract; Damages; Inventor; 
 Master; Sale; Suits.)
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 259 
 
 RULINGS. 
 
 (See Exceptions; Master's Repout; New Trial; Pue- 
 LiMiNAUY Injunctions.) 
 
 SALARY OF DEFENDANT. 
 (See Damages.) 
 
 SALE. 
 
 By agent. ]\Iorse v. Davis, 5 IJlatch. 40. 
 
 What it carries. Faniiigton i-. Gregory, 4 P'isher, 221; Far- 
 ringtou v. Water Commissioners, 4 Fisher, 216. 
 Gives right to use and repair, but not make new ones. 
 Aiken v. Mancliester Print Works, 2 Cliff. 435; Union 
 Metallic Cartridge Co. v. United States Cartridge Co., 
 11 Off. Gaz. ink 
 Under contract, royalty. Wilder v. Stearns, 48 N. Y. 056. 
 Effect of sale. Howe v. Wooldredge, 12 Allen (Mass.), 18. 
 Election to recede. Hotchkiss v. Oliver, 5 Denio (N. Y.), 314. 
 Purchaser from inventor before extension may use after. Blaii- 
 
 chard v. AViiitney, 3 Blatch. 307. 
 False representations. Cowan u. Dodd, 3 Cold. (Tenn.) 278. 
 Fraud. Burrall o. Jewett, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 134. 
 By guardians, injurious to infants, set aside. Leonard v. Bar- 
 
 num, 34 Wise. 105. 
 Of infringing machine. Bell v. Bonnej', 7 La. Ann. 170. 
 General law of right to sell. Celluloid INIanufacturing Co. v. 
 Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 11 Blatch. 375; 10 Off. Gaz. 
 41. 
 Legislation, State. 
 
 Indiana law. W. A. Wood, &c. Co. c. Caldwell, 54 Ind. 
 
 270. 
 Against, is void. Crittenden v. White, 23 ]\Iinn. 24; Rob- 
 inson, Ex parte, 4 Fisher, 186. 
 Patentee's rights are federal. HoUida v. Hunt, 70 111. 109. 
 Right to sell unless injurious to public morals, health, &c. 
 Patterson v. Commonwealth, 11 Bush (Ky.), 311 : Pat- 
 terson I'. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 7 Otto, 501.
 
 260 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Machine (or thing) sold passes out of monopoly. Adams v. 
 Burke, 1 Holmes, 40; 4 Fisher, 392; 1 Off. Gaz. 282 ; 
 Adams v. Burke, 17 Wall. 453; American Cotton Tie 
 Co. V. Simons, 13 Off. Gaz. 967; Chaffee v. Boston 
 Belting Co., 22 How. 217; Goodyear v. Beverly Rub- 
 ber Co., 1 Cliff. 348; McKay v. Wooster, 2 Sawyer, 
 373; 6 Fisher, 375; 3 Off. Gaz. 441 ; Mitchell v. Haw- 
 ley, 16 Wall. 544; 3 Off. Gaz. 241. 
 Sold by assignee does, by licensee does not. Hawley v. 
 Mitchell, 1 Holmes, 42; 4 Fisher, 388; 1 Off. Gaz. 606. 
 Sale of patented machine and thing covered by other's patent is 
 
 license to use thing. Burr v. Putney, 38 N. H. 44. 
 Patentee cannot control use of thing sold. Metropolitan Wash- 
 ing Machine Co. v. Earle, 3 Wall. Jr. 320; 2 Fisher, 203. 
 Of patent right, jurisdiction. Burr v. Gregory, 2 Paine, 426. 
 No implied warranty. Hiatt v. Twomey, 1 Dev. & B. Eq. 
 
 (N. C.) 315. 
 Implied warranty. Johnson v. Willimantic Linen Co., 33 
 Conn. 436. 
 Of personal property, implied warranties. Sherman v. Cham- 
 plain Transportation Co., 31 Vt. 162. 
 Prior sale for two years. Hovey v. Henry, 3 West. L. J. 153. 
 Without title, general principle. Holden v. Curtis, 2 N. H. 
 
 61. 
 (See Abandonment; Dedication; Definition; Estoppel; 
 Infringement; Patent; Preliminarny Injunctions; 
 Public Use; Want of Novelty.) 
 
 SATISFACTION. 
 (See Suits.) 
 
 SAVING. 
 (See Damages.) 
 
 SCIENCE. 
 
 (See Books ; Statute.)
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 261 
 
 SCIEXTIFIC MEN. 
 (See Experts; Original Inventor.) 
 
 SEAL. 
 (See Notary.) 
 
 SECRECY. 
 
 Inventions may be kept secret. Bates v. Coe, 8 Otto, 31 ; 15 
 Off. Gaz. 337. 
 
 (See Injunction; Uncertainty.) 
 
 SECRETARY OF STATE. 
 (See Reissue.) 
 
 SERVICE. 
 
 (See Waiver.) 
 
 SHERIFF. 
 (See Infringement.) 
 
 SILEXCE. 
 
 (See Estoppel.) 
 
 SKETCHES. 
 (See Invention ) > 
 
 SPECIAL ACT. 
 (See Acts; Commissioner.) 
 
 SPECLA.L MATTER. 
 (See Pleai>ing.)
 
 262 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 SPECIAL PLEAS. 
 (See Pleading.) 
 
 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 
 (See Contract; Injunction.) 
 
 SPECIFICATION. 
 (See CoNSTKUCTiON OF Patents; Drawing.) 
 
 STATE OF THE ART. 
 
 (See Construction of Patents; Evidence; Infringe- 
 ment; Original Inventor; Patentability; Want 
 of Novelty.) 
 
 STATE COURTS. 
 (See In.tunction ; Jurisdiction; Patent.) 
 
 STATUTE OF FRAUDS. 
 (See Contract.) 
 
 STATUTES. 
 
 Analysis of the patent law. Evans v. Eaton, 1 Peters C. C. .322; 
 
 1 Robb, 68. 
 Construction of. Ransom v. Mayor of New York, 4 Rlatch. 157; 
 1 Fisher, 2.32. 
 C'ourts do not supply deficiencies in legislation. C^arver v. 
 Braintree Manufacturing Co., 2 Story, 432; 2 Robb, 
 141. 
 Forbidding contracts for supplies by government with its army 
 
 officers. United States v. Burns, 12 Wall. 246. 
 Patent law. 
 
 History of. Tlioinpson v. Haight, 1 U. S. L. J. 563. 
 Construction of. Fuller r. Goodrich, 6 Bissell, 203. 
 In regard to foreign patents. Henry v. Providence Tool 
 Co., 14 Off. Gaz. 8.35.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 2G3 
 
 Object of patent law. 
 
 To encourage useful experiments reduced to practice. Elli- 
 
 thorp V. Robertson, 4 Blatoh. 307; 2 Fisher, 83. 
 To secure to public advantages derived from discoveries. 
 
 Grant v. Raymond, (5 Peters, 218; 1 Robb, 004. 
 To carry out provision to promote science and the useful 
 
 arts. Howe v. Wooldredge, 12 Allen (Mass.), 18. 
 Ultimately to benefit the public. Kendall v. Winsor, 21 
 
 How. 322. 
 Analysis of certain provisions. Page v. Ferry, 1 Fisher, 
 
 298. 
 To secure to inventors exclusive right for definite periods. 
 
 Pike V. Potter, 3 Fisher, 55. 
 Reasons for patent law. Goodyear v. Iliillihen, 2 Hughes, 492; 
 
 3 Fisher, 251. 
 (See Abandonment; Acts; Assignment; Damages; Evi- 
 dence; Limitation; Patent; Rehearing; Reissue; 
 Vacancies.) 
 
 SUBJECT-MATTER. 
 (See Jurisdiction.) 
 
 "SUBSTANTIALLY AS DESCRIBED." 
 (See Definition; Reissue.) 
 
 SUBSTITUTE. 
 (See Infringement.) 
 
 SUCCESS. 
 (See Usefulness.) 
 
 SUGGESTIOXS. 
 (See Inventor; Original Inventor; Patentability; Re- 
 issue; Repeal; Want of Novelty.) 
 
 SUITS. 
 
 Authority to build no bar to suit. Pitts v. Jameson, 15 Barb. 
 (N. y.) 310.
 
 264 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Brought wherever defendant is found. Thompson v. Mendel- 
 sohn, 5 Fisher, 187. 
 On separate claims. Cook v. Ernest, 5 Fislier, 396 ; 2 Off. Gaz. 
 
 89. 
 Unreasonable delay in bringing. Cooper v. Mattheys, 8 Law 
 
 Rep. 413. 
 May be for any one device covered by patent. McComb v. 
 
 Ernest, 1 Woods, 195. 
 Importance of patent suits. Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516. 
 For infringement. 
 
 Are by jury. Motte v. Bennett, 2 Fisher, 642. 
 
 Must be in United States courts. Woven Tape Skirt Co., 
 
 In re, 12 Hun (X. Y.), 111. 
 Inventor selling may sue for infringements before. Moore 
 V. Marsh, 7 Wall. 515. 
 Interest required to sue. ]\Ioore v. Marsh, 7 Wall. 515. 
 By licensee. 
 
 Properly in name of patentee. Goodyear v. Bishop, 2 Fisher, 
 
 96; Goodyear o. McBurney, 3 Blatch. 32. 
 Release by patentee of no avail. Goodyear v. Bishop, 2 
 Fisher, 96. 
 Name of patentee, suit by territorial grantee. Hill v. Whit- 
 comb, 1 Holmes, 317; 5 Off. Gaz. 430. 
 Xotice of suit for fraud. Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. r. Whit- 
 ney, 31 Leg. Int. 229. 
 Patent suits in law and equity. Goff v. Stafford, 14 Off. Gaz. 
 748. 
 Are between parties, not United States. Wood v. Williams, 
 1 Gilpin, 517; 1 Robb, 717. 
 Patentee having full satisfaction from maker cannot sue his pur- 
 chaser. Perrigo v. Spaulding, 13 Blatch. 389 ; 12 Off. Gaz. 
 352. 
 Against purchaser after preliminary injunction against maker. 
 Gilbert and Barker Manufacturing Co. v. Bussing, 12 
 Blatch. 426; 8 Off. Gaz. 144. 
 By receiver for conveyance of patent. Clan Ranald v. Wyckoff, 
 
 41 N. Y. Supr. 527. 
 To recover purchase-money for assignment. Foss v. Richard- 
 son, 15 Gray (Mass.), 303.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 265 
 
 To recover royalties. Ilowei;. Wooldredge, 12 Allen (Mass.), 18. 
 Removal to United States courts. Florence Sewing Machine 
 
 Co. f. Grover and Baker Sewing Machine Co., 110 Mass. 
 
 70. 
 Reviving suit against legal representatives. Smith v. Baker's 
 
 Administrators, 5 Off. Gaz. 496. 
 Right to sue. Aiken v. Dolan, 3 Fisher, 197; Chambers v. 
 Smith, 5 Fisher, 12; Potter v. Holland, 4 Blatch. 206; 
 1 Fisher, 327. 
 
 Assignee of half, joint action. Whittemore i;. Cutter, 1 
 Gall. 429; 1 Robb, 28. 
 To vacate patents. Merserole v. Union Paper Collar Co., 6 
 
 Blatch. 356; 3 Fisher, 483. 
 (See Assignee; Assignment; Corporation; Disclaimer; 
 
 Equity; Injunction; Partners; Surrender; Sur- 
 vivor.) 
 
 SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS. 
 In nature of bill of review. Blandy v. Griffeth, 6 Fisher, 484, 
 
 SUPREME COURT. 
 (See Construction OF Patents; Court; Prior Judgment.) 
 
 SURPRISE. 
 (See New Trial.) 
 
 SURRENDER. 
 Bars suit and it cannot be revived. Fry v. Quinlan, 13 Blatch. 
 20.5; Moffitt V. Gaar, 1 Black, 273; Reedy i-. Scott, 7 Off. 
 Gaz. 463. 
 Withdrawing surrenders. Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co., 2 Cliff. 
 379. 
 
 (See Patent.) 
 
 SURREPTITIOUS PATENT. 
 (See Patent.) 
 
 SURROGATE. 
 (See Jurisdiction.)
 
 266 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 SURVIVOR. 
 
 Of actions for infringement. Atterbury v. Gill, 1.3 Off. Gaz. 
 276. 
 
 SUSPENSION. 
 (See Injunction; Master's Report.) 
 
 TAXATION. 
 
 (See Costs.) 
 
 TAXES. 
 
 Power of city to make taxpayers pay for use of patented pave- 
 ment. Dean v. Charlton, 23 Wis. 590. 
 
 TECHNICAL TERMS. 
 (See Construction of Patents.) 
 
 TERMS. 
 (See Experts; Injunction; Uncertainty.) 
 
 TEST. 
 (See Infringement.) 
 
 TESTIMONY. 
 (See Evidence ; Preliminary Injunctions; Witnesses.) 
 
 THEORY. 
 
 (See Construction of Patents ; Preliminary Injunctions; 
 Publications.) 
 
 TITLE. 
 
 Authority of Patent Office action on title. Wilson v. Barnum, 
 2 Fisher, 635.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 267 
 
 Of complainant. Dorsey Revolving Harvester Rake Co. v. 
 Marsh, G Fisher, 387. 
 Reissue taken by executor. Carew v. Boston Elastic Fab- 
 ric Co., 3 Cliff. 350; 5 Fisher, 90. 
 Unrecorded assignment. Perry v. Corning, 7 Blatch. 195. 
 Two assignments, question wliat passed by first. Mowry 
 V. Grand Street and Newtown Railroad, 10 Blatch. 89 ; 
 5 Fisher, 586. 
 (See Assignment; Declakatiox; Equity; Extension; 
 Note; Patent; Pkeliminauy Ix.junctioxs; Reissue; 
 Sale.) 
 
 TORT. 
 
 (See Corporation; Fraud; Infringement.) 
 
 TRESPASS. 
 (See- Infringement.) 
 
 TRIAL. 
 (See Jury.) 
 
 UNCERTAINTY IN SPECIFICATION. 
 
 Ambiguity may be explained by affidavit annexed to specifica- 
 tion. Pettibone v. Derringer, 4 Wash. 215; 1 Robb, 1.52. 
 
 Certainty in claims. Calkins v. Bertrand, 9 Off. Gaz. 795. 
 
 Reasonable certainty. Lowell r. Lewis, 1 Mason, 182; 1 Robb, 
 131 ; Parker v. Stiles, 5 McLean, 44. 
 
 Chemical compound should state ingredients clearly. Tyler v. 
 Boston, 7 Wall. 327. 
 
 Clearness is condition precedent of validity. Seyiponr v. Os- 
 borne, 11 Wall. 51 G. 
 
 Clearness required. 
 
 So that it may not be ignorantly infringed. Judson v. 
 
 Moore, 1 Bond, 285; 1 Fislier, 544. 
 Sufficient to show nature of invention. Leroy r. Tathara, 
 22 How. 132.
 
 268 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Clearness required — continued. 
 
 Must point out improvement so the public can know. 
 
 Dixon V. Moyer, 4 Wash. 68; 1 Robb, 32i. 
 Not for ordinary but for skilled mechanic. Dorsey Re- 
 volving Harvester Rake Co. v. Marsh, 6 Fisher, 387. 
 Must specify clearly what he claims as his own. Ilolliday 
 
 V. Rheem, IS Penn. St. 465. 
 Distinct and specific statement of what is new. Merrill v. 
 
 Yeomans, 4 Otto, 568; 11 Off. Gaz.QTO. 
 Distinction between new and old. Monce v. Adams, 12 
 
 Blatch. 1 ; 7 Off. Gaz. 177. 
 Disclosing whole truth, materiality of concealment, for jury. 
 
 Reutgen v. Kanowrs, 1 Wash. 168; 1 Robb, 1. 
 So that public could put machine in. use. Sullivan v. Red- 
 field, 1 Paine, 441; 1 Robb, 477. 
 Fixed rule given which will insure success. Tilghman v. 
 
 Werk, 1 Bond, 511; 2 Fisher, 229. 
 Mechanic of ordinary skill to make. Wilbur v. Beecher, 
 2 Blatch. 132; Woodworth v. Wilson, 4 How. 712; 2 
 Robb, 473. 
 Skilled in the art could make. Wood v. Underbill, 5 How. 
 1 ; 2 Robb, 588. 
 Is for court, if without meaning is void. Davis v. McCormick, 
 2 Brock. 297; 1 Robb, 518; Emerson (.-. Hogg, 2 Blatch. 1. 
 Courts are reluctant to hold void for uncertainty. Swift o. 
 
 Whisen, 2 Bond, 115; 3 Fisher, 343. 
 Disclosure of the secret, English practice and ours. Whitney v. 
 
 Emmett, 1 Baldwin, 303; 1 Robb, 567. 
 Void on the face. Allen v. Hunter, 6 McLean, 303. 
 
 A question of law. Judson v. Cope, 1 Bond, 327 ; 1 Fisher, 
 615. 
 Intent to deceive is necessary. Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall. 
 
 429 ; 1 Robb, 28. 
 Impossible to make merchantable goods by directions giveti. 
 
 Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788. 
 Object of provision. Wayne u. Holmes, 1 Bond, 27; 2 Fisher, 
 20. 
 Twofold, public benefit at last, and no ignorant infring- 
 ing. Mabie v. Haskell, 2 Cliff. 507.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 269 
 
 Omissions. Burden v. Corning, 2 Fisher, 477. 
 
 Mainly a question of fact. Carver v. Braintree ^Manufacturing 
 
 Co., 2 Story, 432; 2 Robb, 141. 
 Partly law and partly fact. Goodyear v. Wait, 5 Blatch. 468; 
 
 3 Fisher, 242. 
 Too vague and indefinite terms. Ryan v. Goodwin, :? Sumner, 
 
 514; 1 Robb, 725. 
 Variance between specification and machine is judicial question. 
 
 Grant v. Raymond, 6 Peters, 218; 1 Robb, 604. 
 (See Defective Specification; Patent.) 
 
 UNMARKED ARTICLES. 
 (See Penalty.) 
 
 UNPATENTED ARTICLES. 
 (See Damages; Penalty.) 
 
 UNTESTED PATENTS. 
 (See Preliminary Injunctions.) 
 
 USE. 
 
 Distinction between right to make and vend and right to use. 
 Jenkins r. Greenwald, 1 Bond, 126; 2 Fisher, 37; Mitchell 
 V. Hawley, 10 Wall. 544; 3 Off. Gaz. 241; Steam Cutter 
 Co. V. Shelden, 10 Blatch. 1; 5 Fisher, 477. 
 
 Means by others than patentee. Morris v. Huntington, 1 Paine, 
 348; 1 Robb, 448. 
 
 After expiration of license. Wood worth t'. Curtis, 2 W. & M. 
 524; 2 Robb, 603. 
 
 Right to use continues after extension. Day v. Union India- 
 rubber Co., 3 Blatch. 488; Day v. Union India-rubber Co., 
 20 How. 216. 
 
 Right to use one machine implies right to make it. Woodworth 
 V. Curtis, 2 W. & M. 524; 2 Robb, 603. 
 
 (See Abandonment; Assignee; Assignment; Extension; 
 Inventor; License; Prior Knowledge.)
 
 270 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 USEFULNESS. 
 
 To any degree useful. Bell y. Daniels, 1 Bond, 212; 1 Fisher, 
 372; Wilbur v. Beecher, 2 Blatch. 132. 
 
 Degree required, no particular amount. Bliss v. City of Brook- 
 lyn, 10 Blatch. 521. 
 
 Extensive use as evidence. Adams v. Edwards, 1 Fisher, 1. 
 
 Good faith of defense questioned. Robertson o. Garrett, 10 
 Blatch. 490; 6 Fisher, 278. 
 
 Whether for court or jury, qucere. Langdon v. De Groot, 1 
 Paine, 203. 1 Robb, 433. 
 
 If imposition on public, court should so charge the jury. Lang- 
 don V. De Groot, 1 Paine, 203. 
 
 License to defendant is evidence. Lee v. Blandy, 1 Bond, 361; 
 2 Fisher, 89. 
 
 Means. 
 
 Not frivolous or mischievous. Cook v. Ernest, 5 Fisher, 
 
 396; 2 Off. Gaz. 89. 
 Not mischievous. Cox v. Griggs, 1 Bissell, 362 ; 2 Fisher, 
 
 174. 
 Not pernicious, frivolous, or worthless. Crompton v. Bel- 
 knap Mills, 3 Fisher, 536. 
 Not frivolous or dangerous. Hoffheims o. Brandt, 3 Fisher, 
 218. 
 
 Shown by. 
 
 By being contested by defendant. Rice r. Heald, 13 Pac. ■ 
 
 L. R. 33. 
 Patent jD?-tm a /ac/e evidence. Bell v. Daniels, 1 Bond, 212; 
 
 1 Fisher, 372; Vance v. Campbell, 1 Fisher, 483; 
 Waterbury Brass Co. v. Miller, 9 Blatch. 77; 5 Fisher, 
 48. 
 
 Popularity. Stuart v. Shantz, 6 Fisher, 35; 9 Phila. 376 ; 
 
 2 Off. Gaz. 524. 
 
 Practical success. Bussey v. Hicks, 9 Off. Gaz. 300. 
 
 Use by defendants and others. Rice v. Ileald, 13 Pac. 
 
 L. R. 33; Smith v. Glendale Elastic Fabric Co., 1 
 
 Holmes, 340; 5 Off. Gaz. 429. 
 General utility and non-use are inconsistent. Sayles v. Chicago 
 and Northwestern Railroad, 3 Bissell, 52; 4 Fisher, 586.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 271 
 
 Must be a practical means of doing what is desired. Roberts v. 
 
 Ward, 4 McLean, 565; 2 Robb, 740. 
 (See Damages; Definition; Infringement; Original In- 
 ventor; Patentability; Want of Novelty.) 
 
 VACANCIES. 
 
 Statute for filling. American Wood Paper Co. v. Glen Falls 
 Paper Co., 8 Blatch. 518. 
 
 VAGUENESS. 
 
 (See Publications; Reissue.) 
 
 VALIDITY. 
 
 As a defense. Rice v. Garnhart, 34 Wis. 453. 
 
 Generally. Carr v. Rice, 1 Fisher, 198. 
 
 Is for jury. Magic Ruffle Co. v. Douglass, 2 Fisher, 330. 
 
 Oath. Dyer v. Rich, 1 Metcalf (Mass.), 180. 
 
 Patent /imHrt /ac/e evidence. Alden v. Dewey, 1 Story, 336; 2 
 Robb, 17; Allen v. Hunter, 6 McLean, 303 ; Jones v. Burn- 
 ham, 67 Maine, 93; McDougall v. Fogg, 2 Bosw. (N. Y.) 
 387; Smith v. Woodruff, 1 Mc Arthur, 459; 6 Fisher, 476; 
 4 Off. Gaz. 635. 
 
 Several reasons why a patent may be invalid. Marsh v. Sey- 
 mour, 7 Otto, 348 ; 13 Off. Gaz. 723. 
 
 (See Contract; Injunction; Jurisdiction; Preliminary 
 Injunctions; Prior Judgment; Reissue.) 
 
 VARIANCE. 
 (See Nonsuit; Uncertainty.) 
 
 VARIATIONS. 
 (See Infringement.) 
 
 VERDICT. 
 
 Further instructions after verdict. Florence Sewing IMachine 
 Co. V. Grover and Baker Sewing Machine Co., 110 Mass. 70. 
 (See Assignment; Defective Specification; New Trial; 
 Prelimi.naky Injunctions.)
 
 272 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 VINDICTIVE. 
 
 (See Damages ; lNjUNCTio>f.) 
 
 WAIVER. 
 
 Of conditions prescribed by court. Ransom v. Mayor of New 
 
 York, 4 Blatch. 157. 
 Of irregular service by appearance. Goodyear v. Chaffee, 3 
 
 Blatch. 2G8. 
 Of jurisdiction. Doughty v. West, 2 Fisher, 553. 
 (See Defense; Jurisdiction; New Trial; Rehearing.) 
 
 WANT OF NOVELTY. 
 (^For particular patents^ and that patent is prima facie evidence, 
 
 cases are too numerous to cite.) 
 Aggregation. Kerosene Lamp Heater Co. v. Littell, 13 Off. 
 Gaz. 1009; Sarven v. Hall, 9 Blatch. 524; 5 Fisher, 415; 
 1 Off. Gaz. 437. 
 Amount of invention required. Middletown Tool Co. v. Judd, 
 
 3 Fisher, 141. 
 Amount of novelty required. Miller and Peters Manufacturing 
 
 Co. V. Du Brul, 12 Off. Gaz. 351. 
 Anticipation. 
 
 What it requires. Foote v. Silsby, 2 Blatch. 260. 
 More than a model. Johnson v. McCullock, 4 Fisher, 170; 
 Kelleher v. Darling, 14 Off. Gaz. 673; Stillwell, &c. 
 Co. V. Cincinnati, &c. Co., 7 Off. Gaz. 829. 
 Simple and cheap invention by complex and expensive. 
 
 King V. Hammond, 4 Fisher, 488. 
 By incomplete invention. Richardson v. Noyes, 10 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 507. 
 Must be a practical machine. Sayles v. Chicago and North- 
 western Railroad, 1 Bissell, 468; 2 Fisher, 523. 
 Art, state of. Cawood Patent, 4 Otto, 695; 12 Off. Gaz. 709; 
 Kirby v. Dodge and Stevenson Manufacturing Co., 10 
 Blatch. 307; 6 Fisher, 156; 3 Off. Gaz. 181; Putnam 
 V. Wetherbee, 1 Holmes, 497; 8 Off. Gaz. 320; Recken- 
 dorfer v. Faber, 12 Blatch. 68; 5 Off. Gaz. 697; Whit- 
 ney V. Mowry, 2 Bond, 45; 3 Fisher, 1.57.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 273 
 
 Art, state of — continued. 
 
 New process, new product. Cahill v. Beokford, 1 Holmes, 
 48. 
 Burden of proof. Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. 120; Parker v. 
 
 Remhof, 14 Off. Gaz. 601; Putnam v. Yerrington, 9 Off. 
 
 Gaz. 689. 
 Change. 
 
 Mechanical. Fuller v. Goodrich, 6 Bissell, 203. 
 
 Of material. Ilicks v. Kelsey, 18 Wall. 670 ; 5 Off. Gaz. 
 94; Holbrook v. Small, 10 Off. Gaz. 508; Ilotclikiss v. 
 Greenwood, 11 IIow. 248. 
 
 Material and form. Isaacs v. Abrams, 14 Off. Gaz. 861. 
 
 Of location. Kirby v. Beardsley, 5 Blatch. 438; 3 Fisher, 
 265. 
 
 Colorable. Middletown Tool Co. v. Judd, 3 Fisher, 141. 
 
 Of form. Milligan and Iliggins Glue Co. v. Upton, 7 
 Otto, 3. 
 ■ Structural. Zane v. Peck, 12 Off. Gaz. 518. 
 Cheapness as evidence. Forbush v. Cook, 2 Fisher, 668. 
 Claims, too big. Cross v. Huntly, 13 AVend. (X. Y.) 385. 
 Completed inventions, rejected applications not evidence. 
 
 Howes V. McNeal, 15 Off. Gaz. 608. 
 Convenience, greater. Milligan and Iliggins Glue Co. v. Upton, 
 
 6 Off. Gaz. 837. 
 New effect as evidence. Forbush v. Cook, 2 Fisher, 668. 
 Examiner's adverse report on extension. McMahon v. Tyng, 
 
 14 Allen (Mass.), 167. 
 False suggestions. Ilofl'man v. Aronson, 8 Blatch. 324; 4 
 
 Fisher, 456. 
 Five presumptions of novelty. Ilussey v. AVhitely, 1 Bond, 407; 
 . 2 Fislier, 120. 
 Foreign patents. Union Sugar Refinery v. Matthieson, 3 Cliff. 
 
 639; 2 Fisher, 600. 
 Inventive skill. Clark Patent, &c. Co. v. Copeland, 2 Fisher, 221. 
 Old machine with new element. Rheem v. Holliday, 16 Penn. 
 
 St. 347. 
 Old thing to new use. Smith v. P^lliott, 9 Blatch. 400; 5 Fisher, 
 
 315; 1 Off. Gaz. 331; Strong v. Noble, 6 Blatch. 477; 3 
 
 Fisher, 586. 
 
 18
 
 274 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 By special plea, if plea is stricken out, no evidence admitted. 
 
 Foote V. Silsby, 1 Blatch. 445. 
 Prior use. Dalton v. Jennings, 3 Otto, 271; 11 Off. Gaz. 111^ 
 
 Smith V. Nichols, 21 Wall. 112. 
 Private use not known to public. Haselden v. Ogden, 3 Fisher, 
 
 378. 
 Sale, two years. Smith v. O'Connor, 2 Sawyer, 461; 6 Fisher, 
 
 469; 4 Off. Gaz. 633. 
 Must be specially set up. Pitts v. Edmonds, 1 Bissell, 168; 2 
 
 Fisher, 52. 
 I>ast step being "new makes all new. Klein v. Park, &c. Co., 13 
 
 Off. Gaz. 5. 
 " Substantially the same." Adams v. Edwards, 1 Fisher, 1. 
 Utility. Blake v. Robertson, 4 Otto, 728; 11 Off. Gaz. 877. 
 Greater utility. Smith v. Nichols, 1 Holmes, 172; 6 Fisher, 
 
 61; 2 Off'. Gaz. 649; Stillwell, &c. Co. v. Cincinnati Co., 7 
 
 Off. Gaz. 829. 
 
 (See Injunction; Note; Reissue.) 
 
 WAR. 
 
 (See Abandonment.) 
 
 WARRANTY. 
 
 (See Contract; Jurisdiction; Note; Sale.) 
 
 WASTE. 
 (See Injunction.) 
 
 . WITNESSES. 
 
 Credibility, how tested. Odiorne v. Winkley, 2 Gall. 51 ; 1 
 Robb, 52; Teese v. Huntingdon, 23 How. 2. 
 
 Interested. Evans v. Eaton, 7 Wheat. 356; 1 Robb, 336; 
 Evans v. Hettick, 7 Wheat. 453; 1 Robb, 417; Howe v. 
 . Underwood, 1 Fisher, 160. 
 
 Want of notice of, must be objected to at time. Roemer v. 
 Simon, 5 Off. Gaz. 555. 
 
 Patent Office clerk as witness. Sone v. Palmer, 28 Mo. 539.
 
 SYNOPSIS OF LAW POINTS. 275 
 
 Presumed to speak the truth. Union Sugar Refinery v. Matthie- 
 
 son, 3 Cliff. 639; 2 Fisher, 600. 
 Proper questions to. Philadelphia and Trenton Railroad v. 
 
 Stimpsou, 14 Peters, 448; 2 Robb, 46. 
 Single witness against patentee and his presumption. Wood- 
 worth V. Sherman, 3 Story, 171 ; 2 Robb, 257. 
 (See Assignment; Costs;* Evidence; Injunction; 
 Parties.)
 
 PART III. 
 
 LIST OF PATENTS ON WHICH SUIT HAS BEEN 
 BROUGHT, AS SHOWN IN LIST I.
 
 PART III. 
 
 LIST OF PATENTS ON WHICH SUIT HAS BEEN 
 BROUGHT, AS SHOWN IN LIST L 
 
 A. 
 
 Acid. Attorney-General v. Rumford Chemical Works; Oliver 
 t'. Morgan. 
 
 Advertising apparatus. Gould, H. W., Ex parte. 
 
 Ale. Hammer v. Barnes. 
 
 Alizarine. Badi.sche Anilin, &c. Co. r. Hamilton Manufactur- 
 ing Co. ; Same v. Higgins. 
 
 Alkalies, caustic. Pennsylvania Salt Co. v. Thomas; Thomp- 
 son V. Mendelsohn. 
 
 Amalgamator. Birdsell v. Coolidge; Brodie v. Ophir Silver, 
 &c. Co. ; Coolidge r. McCone. 
 
 Ambrotype. Tomliiison v. Battel. 
 
 Anvil. Cawood Patent. 
 
 Apple-pai-er. Sargent v. Carter; Same v. Lamed; Same v. Sea- 
 grave. 
 
 Artificial gums, &c. Celluloid Manufacturing Co. v. Goodyear 
 Dental Vulcanite Co. ; Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. 
 Benjamin; Same v. Davis; Same r. Flagg; Same v. Gard- 
 ner; Same v. Ireland; Same r. Osgood; Same v. Perry; 
 Same v. Preterre; Same v. Root; Same v. Schemerliorn; 
 Same v. Smith; Same v. Van Antwerp; Same v. Wetherbee; 
 Same v. Willis; Knowles v. Peck ; Sullings v. Goodyear Den- 
 tal Vulcanite Co.; Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. 
 
 Augers. Bruff v. Ives ; De Witt v. Elmira Nobles, &c. Co.
 
 280 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Axles, self-lubi-icating. Jones v. Field. 
 
 Axle-boxes for railways. Lightner v. Boston and Albany 
 Railroad; Same v. Brooks; Same v. Kimball. 
 
 B. 
 
 Bags, travelling. Roemer v. Simon. 
 
 Bag-ties. Foote v. Frost. 
 
 Baker, double reflecting. Dobson v. Campbell. 
 
 Balance. Vaughan v. East Tennessee, &c. Railroad; Same v. 
 
 Potter. 
 Bale-ties. American Cotton Tie Co. v. Simons ; Cook i'. Ernest ; 
 
 Johnson v. Beard; Same v. Fassman; McComb v. Beard; 
 
 Same v. Brodie; Same r. Ernest. 
 Bank-notes. Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank. 
 Bark. Bridge v. Brown. 
 Bark-mill. Wilbur v. Beecher. 
 Barrels. Reed v. Reed. 
 Base-ball covering. Mahn v. Harwood. 
 Baths, electric. House v. Young. 
 Baths, shower. Lai-abee v. Cortland. 
 Bedstead. Boyd v. Brown; Same v. McAlpin; Herbert v. 
 
 Adams. 
 Bed-castors. Blake v. Sperry. 
 Bedstead-fastenings. Haven v. Brown. 
 Beer-coolers. Turrell v. Cammerrer. 
 Bilge-levers. Thomas v. Weeks. 
 Billiard cushions. Collender v. Bailey; Same v. Came; Same 
 
 V. Griffeth; Decker v. Griffeth; Same v. Grote; Same i;. 
 
 New York Belting, &c. Co. ; Same v. Silverbrandt. 
 Biscuit-finisher. Bell i>. Bonney; Treadwell y. Bladen ; Watson 
 
 V. Bladen. 
 Blocks, spelling. Draper v. Hudson; Hill v. Houghton. 
 Blower, rotary. Hyndman v. Roots ; Roots v. Hyndman. 
 Bobbins. Draper v. Potomska INIills; Pearl v. Ocean Mills. 
 Boilers, steam. Bell v. Daniels; Same v. McCulloch; Bellas v. 
 
 Hays; Rice v. Heald.
 
 INVENTIONS. 281 
 
 Boilers steam, cover for. United States and Foreign Salamander 
 Felting Co. v. Haven; Same v. Asbestos Felting Co.; Same 
 IK Lawrence Manufacturing Co. ; Same v. Merrimack Man- 
 ufacturing Co. 
 
 Bolts. Clark v. Kennedy Manufacturing Co. ; Stanley Works 
 V. Sargent & Co. 
 
 Bomb-shells. Hubbell v. United States. 
 
 Bonnets. Doubleday v. Bracheo; Same v. Sherman; Kidd i;. 
 Spence. 
 
 Boom-spring traveller. Kempton v. Bray. 
 
 Boots and shoes. Stevens v. Pritchard; Bedford v. Hunt; 
 United States v. Thacher. 
 
 Boots and shoes, rubber. Colin v. National Rubber Co. 
 
 Boot and shoe tips. American Shoe Tip Co. v. National Shoe 
 Toe Protector Co. 
 
 Boot-trees. Eames v. Cook; Same v. Godfrey; Godfrey v. 
 Eames; Howe v. Newton. 
 
 Boring-machine. Farrington v. Gregory; Same v. Water Com- 
 missioners. 
 
 Bottle-stopper. Putnam v. Hickey; Same v. Wetherbee; Same 
 V. Yerrington. 
 
 Box-fastenings. Parker v. Remhof. 
 
 Box-machinery. Roberts v. Ward. 
 
 Bracelets. Barclay v. Thayer. 
 
 Brakes, air. AVestinghouse v. Gardner and Ransom Air Brake Co. 
 
 Brakes, car. Chicago and Northwestern Railroad v. Sayles; 
 Dunham v. Indiana and St. Louis Railroad; Emigh v. 
 Chamberlain; Same v. Railroad Co.; Hendrie v. Sayles; 
 Hodge V. Hudson River Railroad; Same v. Iron Mountain 
 Railroad; Same v. New York and Harlem Railroad; Same 
 V. North Missouri Railroad; Robinson v. Hodge; Sayles v. 
 Chicago and Northwestern Railroad; Vaughan v. Central 
 Pacific Railroad; Same v. Railroad Co.; Wood v. Railroad 
 Co. 
 
 Brakes, horse-car. Mowry v. Grand Street and Newtown Rail- 
 road. 
 
 Bran-duster. Carr v. Rice. 
 
 Bricks. Chambers v. Smith; Wood v. Underbill. 
 
 Brick-press. Hall v. Wiles.
 
 282 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Bridges. Dubois i;. Philadelphia and Wilmington Railroad Co. ; 
 Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co. ; King v. Ham- 
 mond; McCay v. Burr; Railroad Co. v. Trimble; Reeves 
 V. Keystone Bridge Co. ; Westlake i;. Cartter; Whipple w. 
 Hutchinson . 
 
 Bristles. Wilkins v. Spafford. 
 
 Bronzing iron. Tucker v. Tucker Manufacturing Co. 
 
 Brooms. Gillespie v. Cummings; Pitcher v. United States. 
 
 Brooms, railroad. Isaacs v. Abrams. 
 
 Brush-head. Murphy v. Eastham ; Same v. Kissling. 
 
 Buckets. Edwards v. Richards. 
 
 Buckles. Chase v. Sabin ; Sargent Manufacturing Co. v. Wood- 
 ruff. 
 
 Buckle-fastenings. Schuessler v. Davis. 
 
 Bungs for casks. Pentlarge v. Beeston. 
 
 Bungs, impervious. Geier v. Goetinger. 
 
 Burner, coal. Littlefield v. Perry. 
 
 Burner, gas. Clough v. Gilbert and Barker Manufacturing Co. 
 
 Burner, vapor. Jeffries v. Wiester. 
 
 Burnisher. Sweetzer v. Helms. 
 
 Bustles, ladies'. West v. Silver Wire, &c. Co. 
 
 Buttons. Goodyear v. Matthews ; Piatt v. United States Patent 
 Button, &c. Co. ; Potter v. Thayer. 
 
 Buttoner. Brooks v. Morehouse. 
 
 Buttonhole machine. Singer Co. v. Union Co. 
 
 "C. 
 
 Cable, submarine. Colgate v. Westei-n Union Telegraph Co. 
 
 Camera, plate-holder. Ormsbee v. Wood; Wing v. Richard- 
 son; Same V. Schoonmaker; Same r. Wai-ren. 
 
 Camera, solar. Woodward v. Dinsmore. 
 
 Candles. Stainthorp v. Elkinton; Same v. Humiston; Thayer 
 V. Wales. 
 
 Cannon. Treadwell v. Parrott. 
 
 Cans, tin-. Barry v. Everett ; Same v. Gugenheim ; De Florez 
 V. Raynolds; Serviss v. Stockstill. 
 
 Capstans. McMillin v. Barclay. 
 
 Cars, hand. Brown v. Ilinkley.
 
 INVENTIONS. 283 
 
 Cars, railroad. Cooper v. Mattheys ; Finch v. Rikeman ; Imlay 
 V. Norwich and Worcester Kaihoad; Knight v. Raih'oad 
 Co.; Winans V. Boston and Providence Raih'oad; Same r. 
 Denmead; Same v. Eaton; Same v. New York and Erie 
 Railroad; Same t;. New York and Harlem Railroad; Same 
 V. Schenectady and Troy Railroad ; York and Maryland Line 
 Railroad v. Winans. 
 
 Car-wheels. Many v. Jagger; Same v. Sizer; McMahon v. 
 Tyng; Mowry v. Whitney; Needham v. Mowry; Whitney 
 V. Same. v 
 
 Car-wheels, horse, Lester v. Palmer. 
 
 Carburetting air. Gilbert and Barker Manufacturing Co. v. 
 Bussing; Same v. Tirrell; Same v. Walworth Manufactur- 
 ing Co. 
 
 Carding-engines. Dyson v. Danforth. 
 
 Carding-machine. Union IManufacturing Co. r. Lounsbury; 
 Whittemore v. Cutter. 
 
 Cai-penters' squares. Hart, &c. Manufacturing Co. v. Sargent 
 &Co. 
 
 Carpet lining. Chipman ?\ Wentworth; Fales v. Wentworth. 
 
 Carpets, making. Thompson v. Haight. 
 
 Carriages. Comstock v. Sandusky Seat Co. ; Richardson v. 
 Noyes; Rubber Step, &c. Co. v. Noyes; Wood v. Wells. 
 
 Carriage-wheels. Sarven v. Hall. 
 
 Cartridge-heads. Union Metallic Cartridge Co. v. United States 
 Cartridge Co. 
 
 Cement. Darst v. Brockway. 
 
 Chains, stretching. Hall v. Bird. 
 
 Cheese-press. Boomer v. United Power Press Co. 
 
 Child's toy. Gong Bell Manufacturing Co. v. Clark; New York 
 Rubber Co. v. Chaskel. 
 
 Churn. Dunbar i;. Marden ; Rose r. Hurley. 
 
 Cider-mill. Head v. Stevens; Stevens t). Head. 
 
 Clapboards. Eastman v. Bodfish. 
 
 Cloth-felting machine. Peabody v. Norfolk; Union Manufac- 
 tui'ing Co. V. Lounsbury. 
 
 Clover-machine. Birdsell v. Ashland, &c. Co. ; Same v. Hagers- 
 town Agricultural Implement, &c. Co.; Same v. McDonald; 
 Same v. Perego; Perrigo v. Spaulding; Wood v. Williams.
 
 284 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Coal-screener. Batten u. Kear; Same t;. Silliman ; Battin u. Tag- 
 gert; Heilner v. Batten. 
 
 Cock, steam-gauge. Dalton v. Nelson. 
 
 Coffins. Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co. 
 
 Coffin-lids. Adams v. Burke. 
 
 Combs. Bull V. Pratt; India-rubber Co. v. Phelps; Tryon v. 
 White. 
 
 Cooling metal. Herring v. Gage; Same v. Nelson. 
 
 Corned beef. Wilson Packing Co. v. Clapp. 
 
 Corn-sheller. Adams v. Joliet IManufacturing Co. ; Burrall v. 
 Rumsey; McDowell v. Meredith. 
 
 Corsets. Cohn v. United States Corset Co. ; Foy v. Hunter ; 
 Moody V. Taber; Thompson i;. Jacobs. 
 
 Corset-clasp. Seligman v. Day. 
 
 Corset-springs. Barnes v. Straus. 
 
 Corset steel. Egbert v. Lippman. 
 
 Cotton-cleaner. Haydsn v. Suffolk Manufacturing Co. ; Nes- 
 mith V. Calvert; Suffolk Manufacturing Co. v. Hayden. 
 
 Cotton-gin. Carver v. Braintree Manufacturing Co. ; Carver v. 
 Hyde; Ely v. Monson; Kinsman v. Parkhurst; Morris v. 
 Lowell Manufacturing Co. ; Parkhurst v. Kinsman; Whip- 
 ple V. Baldwin Manufacturing Co. ; Same v. Middle- 
 sex Co. 
 
 Cotton-opener. Whitehead v. Kitson. 
 
 Cotton-preparing. Langdon v. De Groot. 
 
 Cotton-press. Tyler v. Hyde; Wicks v. Stevens. 
 
 Cotton-speeder. Boston Manufacturing Co. v. Fiske; DavoU ?7. 
 Brown; Moody v. Fiske. 
 
 Crucibles. Pickering y. McCuUoch; Same v. Phillips ; Storrs w. 
 Howe. 
 
 Cultivators (see Harvesters). Calkins t;. Bertrand; Conklin 
 V. Stafford; Dennis v. Eddy; Eddy v. Dennis; Marsh v. 
 Commissioner of Patents ; Same v. Sayles ; Sayles v. Hap- 
 good; State V. Peck; Tracy v. Torrey; TurnbuU v. Weir 
 Plow Co. 
 
 Curves, turning. Philadelphia and Trenton Railroad v. Stimp- 
 son; Stimpson v. Baltimore cand Susquehanna Railroad; 
 Same v. The Railroads ; Same v. West Chester Rail- 
 road.
 
 INVENTIONS. 285 
 
 Cuspadores. IngersoU v. Benham; Same v. Musgrove; Same 
 
 V. Turner. 
 Cutlery. Kussell v. Lathrop. 
 Cutlery polisher. Armstrong v. Hanlenbeck. 
 
 D. 
 
 Dam, adjustable. Cammeyer v. Newton. 
 
 Deflector, dust. Cook v. Howard. 
 
 Dental plates. Smith v. McClelland. 
 
 Door-fastenings. Kittle v. Merriam. 
 
 Door-plates. Loudon v. Birt. 
 
 Dredge. Morris v. Shelburne. 
 
 Dredging-boats. Brady v. Atlantic Works. 
 
 Drilling-machine. Bates v. Coe. 
 
 Drills, grain. Ingels y. Mast ; Moore y. Marsh. 
 
 Drills, rock. American Diamond Rock Boring Co. v. Sullivan 
 
 Co. ; Burleigh Rock Drill Co. v. Lobdell. 
 Drills, twist. Morse Twist Drill Co. v. Morse. 
 Drills, well. Rouse v. Fletcher. 
 Drill, wheat. Newell t'. Gatling. 
 Drive-well. Craig t". Smith; Ferree r. Smith. 
 Dualin. Powder Co. v. Burkhardt. 
 Dyes, &c. Badische Anilin, &c. v. Higgins. 
 Dyeing cloth. Barrett v. Hall; Stearns v. Barrett. 
 
 E. 
 
 Egg-beater. Munroe v. Dover Stamping Co. 
 
 Egg- transporter. McKay v. Wooster. 
 
 Elastic fabrics. Smith v. Elliott; Same v. Glendale Fabric 
 
 Co. 
 Elevator, hay. Bennet v. Fowler; Elkins v. Kenyon; Nellis v. 
 
 McLanahan. 
 Engine, fire. City of New York v. Ransom; Park v. Little; 
 
 Ransom v. City of New York.
 
 286 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Engines, steam. Blandy v. Griifeth; Butch v. Boyer; Clark 
 Patent, &c. Co. v. Copeland; Corliss v. Wheeler and Wil- 
 son Manufacturing Co.; Emerson v. Hogg; Gould v. Rees; 
 Hogg V. Emerson ; Packet Co. v. Sickels ; Sullivan v. Red- 
 field. 
 
 Exercise apparatus. Taylor v. Weed. 
 
 Explosives. Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. California Powder 
 Works; Same v. Goodyear; Same v. Mowbray; Same v. 
 Townsend. 
 
 Extinguisher, fire. Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co. v. 
 Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co. 
 
 F. . 
 
 Fanning-mill. Johnson v. McCabe; Scott w. Sweet. 
 
 Fats, purifying. Mitchell i;. Tilghman; Tilghman r. Mitchell ; 
 Same v. Werk. 
 
 Faucet, self-closing. Zane v. Peck. 
 
 Feathers, renovating. MuUiken v. Latchem. 
 
 Felting-machine. Asbestos Felting Co. v. United States and 
 Foreign Salamander Felting Co. 
 
 Fences, wire. New York Wire Rail Co. v. Walker. 
 
 Filters. Hall v. Orvis; Stillwell, &c. Co. v. Cincinnati, &c. 
 Co. 
 
 Filter, well. Tillotson v. Munson. 
 
 Fire-arms. Allen v. Blunt; Same v. Sprague; Berdan Fire-arm, 
 &c. Co. V. Remington; Colt v. Massachusetts Arms Co.; 
 Same v. Young ; Henry v. Providence Tool Co. ; Pettibone 
 V. Derringer; Remington v. Allen; Renwick v. Cooper; 
 Same v. Pond; Roberts v. Schuyler; Shaw v. Cooper, Smith 
 V. Allen ; Same v. Rifle Co. ; United States Rifle, &c. Co. 
 ?;. Whitney Arms Co, ; White y. Allen; Same u. Boker. 
 
 Fireplaces. Dodge v. Card. 
 
 Flax-dressing. Dickinson v. Hall. 
 
 Flour-process. American Middlings Purifier Co. v. Atlantic 
 Middlings Co.; Same y. Christian; Cochrane v. Deener. 
 
 Flour-machine. Evans v. Chambers; Same v. Eaton; Same v. 
 Hettick; Same v. Jordan; Same v. Kremer; Same v. Rob- 
 inson; Same v. Weiss.
 
 INVENTIONS. 287 
 
 Flour-separator. Swift v. Whisen. 
 
 Fluting-inachine. Cole v. Kennedy; King v. Maudelbaum; 
 
 Same v. Werner; Knox v. Loweree; Kursheedt v. Werner; 
 
 Werner v. King. 
 Forge-hammer. Geiger v. Cook. 
 Frescoing. Bliss v. Negus. 
 
 Fruit-house. Chicago Fruit House Co. v. Busch. 
 Fruit-jar. Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Whitney; Same v. 
 
 Wright; Houghton v. llowley; McCully v. Cunningham; 
 
 Watson V. Cunningham. 
 Fuel, economizing. Detwold v. Reeves. 
 Fmnace, hot-air. Bantz v. Elsas; Black v. Hubbard; Same v. 
 
 Munson; Same v. Thorne; Same v. Wells; Burns v. Barnes; 
 
 Burrows v. Lehigh Zinc Co.; Collins v. Peebles; Knox u. 
 
 Great Western Quicksilver Mining Co.; Liddle v. Cory; 
 
 Thatcher Heating Co. v. Carbon Stove Co. 
 Furnace, metallurgic. Bevin v. East Hampton Bell Co. 
 Furnace, puddling. Pennock v. Beale. 
 
 G. 
 
 Gaffs for sails. Brown v. Duchesne. 
 
 Gage lathe. American Whip Co. v. Lombard. 
 
 Gang-plow. Carter v. Baker; Same v. Rice. 
 
 Gas-machine. McDougall v. Fogg. 
 
 Gas-stove. First National Bank v. Peck. 
 
 Gates, farm. Wright i'. Glick; Same v. Hickey; Same v. Mc- 
 Millan; Same v. Smithpeter. 
 
 Gauge, steam. United States Gauge Co. v. American Gauge 
 Co. 
 
 Glass-cutter. Monce v. Adams. 
 
 Glue. Milligan and Higgins Glue Co. v. Upton. 
 
 Gold-plating. Shaw and Wilcox Co. v. Lovejoy. 
 
 Grain-dryer. Sykes «'. Manhattan Elevator aud Grain Diying Co. 
 
 Grain-grinder. Smith v. Pearce. 
 
 Grain-screener. Hess v. Young. 
 
 Grain-separators. Booth v. Parks; Howes v. McNeal; Moffitt 
 V. Gaar; Schwarzel v. Holenshade.
 
 288 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Grate-bars. Harlow v. Putnam. 
 
 Grating, wire. Chase v. Walker. 
 
 Grist-mill. Kernodle v. Hunt; Tyler v. Tuel. 
 
 H. 
 
 Halter-rings. Chase v. "Wesson. 
 
 Haras, putting up. Billings v. Ames. 
 
 Hand-stamp. Robertson v. Garrett; Same v. Hill; Same v. 
 
 Secombe Manufacturing Co. 
 Hai;ness, saddle. North v. Kershaw; Williams v. Hicks. 
 Harness, saddle-pad. American Saddle Co. v. Hogg; Kendall 
 
 V. Winsor. 
 Harness-trimmings. Albright v. Celluloid Harness Trimming 
 
 Co. 
 Harrow. Rowe v. Blanchard. 
 
 Harvester (see Cultivator). Aultmau v. Holley; Dorsey Re- 
 volving Harvester Rake Co. v. Bradley Manufacturing Co. ; 
 
 Same v. Marsh; Graham v. Gammon; Ketchum, &c. Co. v. 
 
 Johnston, &c. Co.; Kirby v. Beardsley; Same v. Dodge and 
 
 Stevenson Manufacturing Co. ; Mann v. Bayliss ; Morse v. 
 
 Davis; Read v. Miller; Rice v. Garnhart; Seymour v. Marsh. 
 Harvester (see Mowkr and Reaper). Seymour v. Osborne; 
 
 Wheeler v. McCormick; Whitely v. Kirby; Same v. Swayne. 
 Hats. Baldwin v. Bernhard; Same v. Schultz; Burr v. Cowper- 
 
 thwait; Same v. Duryee; Eickermeyer, &c. Co. v. Pearce; 
 
 Gill V. Wells; Gorham v. Mixter; Hawley v. Mitchell; 
 
 Mallory v. Rahmer; Same v. White; Mitchell v. Hawley; 
 
 Nichols V. Pearce; Sanford v. IMerrimack Hat Co. ; Wells v. 
 
 Gill ; Same v. Hagaman ; Same v. Jacques ; Same v. Yates. 
 Hay-cutter. Stevens v. Pierpont. 
 Heddles. Emmons v. Sladdin. 
 Hoisting-apparatus. Reedy v. Scott; Tufts v. Boston Machine 
 
 Co. 
 Hook, self-mousing. Middletown Tool Co. v. Judd. 
 Horse-collars. Cowan v. Dodd; Same r. Mitchell. 
 Horse-power. Gray v. Hulshizer; Pitts v. Hall. 
 Horse-shoe. Burden v. Corning; Foss v. Richardson.
 
 INVENTIONS. 289 
 
 Hose-couplings. Bliss v. City of Brooklyn; Same v. Gaylord 
 
 Manufacturing Co.; Same v. Haight. 
 Hotel-register. Hawes v. Aiitisdel; Same v. Cook; Same v. 
 
 Gage; Same v. AVashburne. 
 Houses, warming. Gold v. Ives. 
 Hydrants. Meyer v. Bailey. 
 
 I. 
 
 Ice-cutter. Wyeth v. Stone. 
 
 India-rubber. Ayling v. Hall ; Carew v. Boston Elastic Fabric 
 Co. ; Chaffee v. Boston Belting Co. ; Same v. Hay ward; Day 
 V. Boston Belting Co.; Same v. Candee; Same v. Cary; 
 Same v. Hartshorn ; Same v. Newark India-rubber Co. ; 
 Same v. Xew England Car Spring Co. ; Same v. Stellman; 
 Same v. Union India-rubber Co. ; Elastic Fabric Co. v. 
 Rubber Thread Co. ; Goodyear v. Allen; Same v. Berry; 
 Same v. Beverly Rubber Co.; Same v. Bishop; Same v. 
 Bourn ; Same r. Cary ; Same i\ Chaffee ; Same v. Congress 
 Rubber Co.; Same v. Day; Same v. Dunbar; Same v. 
 Evans; Same v. Hills; Same v. Housinger; Same v. HuUi- 
 hen; Same v. Lunsford; Same v. McBarney; Same v. 
 Mullee; Same v. New Jersey Central Railroad; Same v. New 
 York Gutta-percha Co.; Same v. Phelps; Same r. Provi- 
 dence Rubber Co.; Same v. Rust; Same v. Toby; Same v. 
 Union Rubber Co.; Same v. Wait; Same v. Wingerter; 
 Gutta-percha Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co. ; Hartshorn v. 
 Day; McBurney v. poodyear; Metropolitan Washing Co. 
 V. Earle ; Poppenhusen v. Falke ; Same v. New York Gutta- 
 percha Co. ; Suydam v. Day. 
 
 India silks, staining. McGaw v. Bryam. 
 
 Inkstands. Philp v. Nock. 
 
 Iron-rounder. Reutgen v. Kanowrs. 
 
 Iron, working. Page v. Dickerson. 
 
 Jelly-glass. Atterbury r. Gill. 
 Joints, steam-tight. Poillon v. Schmidt. 
 
 19
 
 290 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 K. 
 
 Kettles, brass. Phelps v. Brown ; Waterbury Brass Co. v. 
 
 Miller; Same v. New York, &c. Co. 
 Key-coupling instruments. Berger v. Peterson. 
 Knitting-machine. Tompkins v. Gage. 
 Knitting-needles. Aiken v. Dolan; Same v. Manchester Print 
 
 Works; Sands v. Wardwell. 
 Knobs, door. Hotchkiss v. Greenwood; Whitney v. Emmett. 
 
 L. 
 
 Lampblack. Child v. Adams. 
 
 Lamps. Ashcroft i>. Hollings; Bierce v. Stocking; Carlton v. 
 Bokee; Hardesty v. Smith; Irwin v. Dane; Jones y. Van- 
 kirk; Kerosene, &c. Co. v. Littell; Merrill, Rufus S. ; Mil- 
 ler & Co. V. Bridgeport Brass Co.; Nichols v. Newell; 
 Wallace v. Holmes. 
 
 Lamps, locomotive. Williams v. Rome, Watertown, and Og- 
 densburg Railroad. 
 
 Lanterns. Dane v. Chicago Manufacturing Co. ; Same v. lUi 
 nois Manufacturing Co. ; Dennis v. Ci'oss ; Sangster v. 
 Miller. 
 
 Last, shoe. Mabie v. Haskell. 
 
 Lath-machine. Moore v. Bare. 
 
 Lathe, irregular forms. Blanchard v. Beers; Same v. Haynes; 
 Same v. Reeves; Same v. Sprague; Same v. Whitney; 
 Blanchard Gunstock Co. v. Jacobs; Same v. Warner; Gear 
 V. Grosvenor; Same i;. Holmes ; Spring i'. Howard ; Same r. 
 Packard; Whitney v. RoUstone, &c. Works. 
 
 Leather. American Hide and Leather Splitting, «S;c. Co., v. 
 American Tool, &c. Co. ; Cahill v. Beckford ; Same v. Brown ; 
 Davis V. Bell; Klein v. Russell. 
 
 Leather, crimping. Piatt, Ex parte; Russell v. Dodge; Same 
 V. Place; Stimpson v. Woodman; Woodcock v. Parker; 
 Woodman v. Stimpson. 
 
 Lever, compound. Guyon v. Serrell. 
 
 Lime, burning. Hill v. Thuermer.
 
 INVENTIONS. 291 
 
 Lime-kilns. Shelly v. Bramian. 
 
 Lister. Green v. Willard Improved Barrel Co. 
 
 Locks, door. Adams v. Jones; Ball v. Murry; CoflBn v. Ogden. 
 
 Locks, sash. Groff v. Hansel; Hopkins, &c. Co. v. Corbin; 
 Jones V. Morehead; Livingston i'. Jones; Morehead v. 
 Jones; Norwalk Lock Co. i'. Berger; Russell and Erwin 
 Manufacturing Co. i'. ]\Lillory; Same v. Manufacturing Co.; 
 Yale, &c. Co. v. North. 
 
 Looms. Carstaedt v. United States Corset Co. ; Crompton v. 
 Belknap Mills; Dyer v. Rich; Fitz v. Corney; Forbush 
 V. Bradford; Same v. Cook; Graham v. Mason; Lane v. 
 Smith ; Lowell Manufacturing Co. v. Hartford Co. ; Pierce 
 V. Wilson; Stone v. Sprague; Taylor v. Collins; Webster 
 V. New Brunswick Carpet Co. ; Wright v. AVilson. 
 
 Lottery drawing. Vannini v. Paine. 
 
 Lubricators. Garratt v. Seibert; Pelton v. Waters; Seibert v. 
 Garratt. 
 
 M. 
 
 Martingale rings. Rubber Coated, &c. Co. v. Welling; Welling 
 
 V. Rubber Coated, &c. Co. 
 Mat, rubber. Brown v. Rubber Step, &c. Co. 
 Matches. Brooks v. Byam; Byam v. Bullard; Same v. Eddy; 
 
 Same v. Farr; Ryan v. Goodwin. 
 INLattress. Howe v. Abbott; Kittle v. Frost; Muscan Hair 
 
 I\Ianufacturing Co. v. American Hair Manufacturing Co. 
 Meats, curing. Pike v. Potter. 
 Medicine. Brown v. Wright; Jordan v. Dayton; Smith v. 
 
 Tracy ; Thompson v. Staats. 
 Metallic plates. Allen ?'. Hunter. 
 Meters. Nusbaum v. Emery. 
 Millstone. Gilmore v. Aiken. 
 Millstones, balaucing. Wise v. Allis. 
 Mineral waters. Bowker v. Dows. 
 Mining apparatus. Fisher v. Craig. 
 Mirror, hand. Clark v, Scott; Florence Manufacturing Co. v. 
 
 Boston Diatite Co. 
 Miter-machine. La Baw i'. Hawkins.
 
 292 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Mocassin pac. Kelleher v. Darling. 
 
 Moldings. Serrell v. Collins. 
 
 Molds, cigar. Miller, &c. Co. v. Du Brul. 
 
 Molds. Smith v. Marshall. 
 
 Mop-head. Garretson v. Clark; Taylor v. Garretson. 
 
 Mortising-machine. Smith v. Fay & Co. 
 
 Mower (see Cultivator, &c.). Commissioner of Patents v. 
 
 Whitely. 
 Mower (see Reaper, &c.). Clough v. Patrick; Jackson v. Breck; 
 
 Read v. Bowman ; Saxton v. Dodge ; Sprague v. Adriance ; 
 
 Walter A. Wood, &c. Co. v. Caldwell. 
 
 N. 
 
 Nail-machine. Corning v. Burden; Gray v. James; Odiorne 
 
 V. Amesbury Nail Factory; Odiorne v. Winkley; Sawin v. 
 
 Guild; Troy Iron and Nail Factory v. Corning; Same v. 
 
 Odiorne; Same v. AVinslow; West v. Morrison. 
 Nail-pullers. Maltby v. Bobo. 
 Navigation. Livingston v. Van Ingeu. 
 Necklaces. Mulford v. Pearce. 
 Nets, hair. Dalton v. Jennings. 
 Nickel-plating. Hawkes v. Remington; United Nickel Co. r. 
 
 Authes; Same v. Keith. 
 Nuts. Wood V. Cleveland, &c. Co. ; Samei>. Union Iron Works. 
 
 0. 
 
 Oil. Patterson v. Commonwealth; Tyler v. Boston. 
 
 Oil, hydrocarbon. Merrill v. Yeomans. 
 
 Oil, purifying. National Filtering Oil Co. v. Arctic Oil Co. 
 
 Oil, sperm. Thomas v. Quintard. 
 
 Oil-wells. Roberts v. Dickey; Same v. Roter. 
 
 Operator, self. Avery v. Bushnell. 
 
 Oven, rotary. Vale v. Butler. 
 
 Ovens. Ball v. Bailie; Same v. Withington. • 
 
 Overshoes. Meyer v. Pritchard.
 
 INVENTIONS. 293 
 
 Packing for boxes. Tuck v. Brarahill. 
 
 Packing, elastic. Jenkins v. Johnson; Same v. Walker. 
 
 Packing, metallic. Matthews v. Skates. 
 
 Paint-cans. Brown v. Hall; Masury v. Anderson; Same v. Tie- 
 
 mann. 
 Paint, marine. Tarr v. Folsom; Same v. Webb; Wonson v. 
 
 Gilman; Same v. Peterson. 
 Paper-bags. Arkell v. Hurd Paper Bag Co. ; Binney v. Annan ; 
 
 Union Paper Bag Machine Co. v. Binney; Same v. Crane; 
 
 Same v. Murphy; Same v. Newell; Same v. Nixon; Same 
 
 V. Puitz and \Valkley Co. 
 Paper-collars. Hoffman v. Aronson; Same v. Stiefel; Mer- 
 
 serole v. Union Paper Collar Co.; Snow v. Tapley; Same v. 
 
 Taylor; Union Paper Collar Co. v. Leland; Same v. Van 
 
 Deusen; Same v. White. 
 Paper-folding. Appleton v. Bacon. 
 Paper-holders. Smith v. Woodruff. 
 Paper-machine. Ames v. Howard. 
 Paper-making. Middlebrook v. Broadbent. 
 Paste, flour. AVoodward v. Morrison. 
 "Patent." Stimpson v. Pond; United States v. Morris. 
 Pavement, concrete. Jenkins v. Abbotts ; Schillinger v. Gunther. 
 Pavement, stone. Guidet v. Barber; Same v. Palmer. 
 Pavement, wooden. American Nicolson Pavement Co. v. City 
 
 of Elizabeth; Same v. Hatch; Same v. Jenkins; Bigelow v. 
 
 City of Louisville; Dane v. Charlton; Greaton v. Griffin; 
 
 Jenkins v. Nicolson Pavement Co. 
 Pegging-machine. Baldwin v. Sibley. 
 Pegging shoes. Gallahue v. Butterfield. 
 Pen, fountain. Morse Fountain Pen Co. v. Esterbrook Co. 
 Pen, gold. Rapp v. Bard. 
 Pencil. Reckendorfer v. Faber. 
 Pencil-heads. Ashcroft v. Cutter; Hovey v. Rubber Tip Pencil 
 
 Co. ; Rubber Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard 
 Perforating-machine. Tappan v. National Bank Note Co. 
 Petroleum. Densmore v. Schofield; Slemmer's Appeal. 
 Picks. Klein v. Park & Co.
 
 294 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Pin-machine. American Pin Co. v. Oakville Co. 
 
 Pipe- tongs. Ashcroft r. Walworth. 
 
 Pipes, lead. Gay v. Cornell; Tatham v. Leroy; Same v. Lor- 
 ing; Same v. Lowber. 
 
 Pipes, stove. Hoeltze i\ Hoeller. 
 
 Pitching barrels. Gottfried v. Bartholomae. 
 
 Planes, bench. Stanley Rule, &c. Co. v. Bailey. 
 
 Planes, circular. Isaacs v. Cooper. 
 
 Plauing-machine. Baker v. Mason; Barnard v. Gibson; Bick- 
 nell V. Todd; Bloomer v. Gilpin; Same v. McQuewan; 
 Same v. Millinger; Same v. Stolly; Brooks v. Bicknell; 
 Same v. Fiske; Same v. Jenkins; Same v. Norcross; Same 
 V. Stolly; Brown v. Shannon; Dean v. Mason; Foss v. 
 Herbert; Gibson v. Bernard; Same v. Betts ; Same v. 
 Cook; Same v. Gifford; Same i'. Harris; Same v. Van 
 Desar; Same v. Wood worth; Jenkins v. Greenwald; Lip- 
 pincott V. Kelly; Livingston v. Woodworth: Motte v. Ben- 
 nett; Olcott V. Hawkins; Pitts v. Edmonds; Rich v. 
 Atwater; Ritter v. Serrell; Simpson v. Wilson; Sloat v. 
 Patton; Smith v. Patton; Stover v. Halsted; Van Hook 
 V. Pendleton; Washburn v. Gould; Wilson v. Barnum; 
 Same v. Rousseau; Same v. Sandford; Same v. Sherman; 
 Same v. Simpson; Same v. Stolly; Same v. Turner; Wood- 
 worth V. Cheever; Same v. Cook; Same v. Curtis; Same v. 
 Edwards; Same v. Hall; Same v. Rogers; Same v. Sher- 
 man ; Same v. Stone ; Same v. Weed ; Same v. Wilson. 
 
 Plank-protector. Melius v. Silsbee. 
 
 Plow. Hall V. Speer. 
 
 Plow, drain. Cox v. Griggs; Davis v. McCormick; Hays v. 
 Sulsor; Ogle v. Ege; Prouty v. Draper; Same v. Ruggles. 
 
 Plow, mold-board. Davis v. Palmer; Dennis v. Eddy. 
 
 Polisher, cylinder. Cowing v. Rumsey. 
 
 Powders, putting up. Sawyer i;. Bixby. 
 
 " Power." Carl v. Morey. 
 
 Preserving corn. Jones v. Burnham; Same v. Hodges; Same 
 V. McMurry; Same w. Merrill; Same v. Noyes; Same v. 
 Ostrander; Same v. Sewall; Sewall v. Jones. 
 
 Preserving fish. Brown v. Piper; Piper v. Brown; Same v. 
 Moon.
 
 INVENTIONS. 295 
 
 Press, baling. King v. Louisville Cement Co. 
 
 Printing-bed. Clark v. Bousfield. 
 
 Printing-galleys. Hoe & Co. v. Cole & Co. 
 
 Printing-machine. Bullock Printing Press Co. v. Jones. 
 
 Printing-press. Boston and Fair Haven Iron Woi'ks v. Mon- 
 tague; Child r. Boston and Fair Haven Iron Works; Hill 
 V. Whitcomb; jMontague v. Boston and Fair Haven Iron 
 Works. 
 
 Prisons and jails. Jacobs v. Baker; Same v. Commissioners of 
 Hamilton County. 
 
 Pulley-blocks. Weston v. White. 
 
 Ptdp, wood. American Wood Paper Co. r. Fibre, &c. Co. ; Same 
 r. Glen Falls Co.; Same v. Heft; Anthony v. Carroll; 
 Buchanan t;. Howland; Miller v. Andioscoggin Pulp Co.; 
 Wood Paper Patent. 
 
 Pumps, chain. Barker v. Stowe. 
 
 Pumps, force. McClure v. Jeffrey. 
 
 Pumps, gas. Gould's Manufacturing Co. v. Cowing. 
 
 Pumps, oil. Shoup v. Henrici. 
 
 Pimaps, steam. Haselden t'. Ogden ; Lowell v. Lewis ; Reed v. 
 Cutter; Scaife v. Fulton's Sons & Co.; Same v. Sheriffs. 
 
 Punching metal. Sturges v. Van Hagen. 
 
 Purifying middlings. Clark v. Smith. 
 
 Purifying spirits. Holden v. Curtis. 
 
 R. 
 
 Railroad bars. Turrill v. Illinois Central Railroad. 
 
 Rake, hay. Brown v. Whittemore ; Joliffe v. Collins. 
 
 Rake, horse. Hoffheims v. Brandt. 
 
 Reaper (see Cultivator)- Davis & Co. v. Gray; Hussey r. 
 Bradley ; Same ». McCormick ; Same v. Whitely ; Marsh v. 
 Dodge ; Same v. Dodge and Stevenson Manufacturing Co. ; 
 Same v. McCormick; McCormick v. Many; Same v. Sey- 
 mour; Same v. Talcott; Nour.se v. Allen; Seymour v. Mc- 
 Cormick; Wheeler i;. Clipper Mower, &c. Co. 
 
 Reed instrument. Cahart v. Austin. 
 
 Reed organ. Burdett v. Estey.
 
 296 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Reflector, gas. Frink v. Petry. 
 
 Refrigerators. Roberts v. Buck; Same v. Harnden; Same ». 
 Ryer. 
 
 Register, fare. Yuengling i'. Johnson. 
 
 Reservoir. Bussey r. Hicks; Same u. Wager. 
 
 Rocking-chair. Bean v. Smallwood. 
 
 Rollers, chilled. McClurg v. Kingsland. 
 
 Rollers, dough. Nevins v. Johnson. 
 
 Rollers, ink. Francis v. Mellor. 
 
 Rollers, iron. Pennock, J. L. 
 
 Roof, composition. Plastic Slate, &c. Co. v. Moore. 
 
 Roof, paper. Howard v. Christy. 
 
 Ruffles. Elm City Co. v. Wooster; Magic Ruffle Co. v. Doug- 
 lass; Same v. Elm City Co. ; Wooster v. Calhoun. 
 
 s. 
 
 Saddle. Williams v. Hicks. 
 
 Saddle-making. Dixon v. Moyer. 
 
 Safes. Adams ik Edwards; Delano v. Scott; Gaylor v. Wilder; 
 
 Rich V. Lippincott; Wilder v. Adams; Same v. McCormick; 
 
 Same v. Stearns. 
 Sails for vessels. Gardiner v. Howe. 
 Salt, putting up. Pennsylvania Salt Co. v. Gugenheim. 
 Sand-blast. Tilghman v. Hartell. 
 Sashes. Elmer v. Pennell. 
 Sawing-macliine. Dunbar v. Myers ; Emerson v. Simm; Eunson 
 
 V. Dodge; Same v. Peddle; Myers v. Dunbar; Same v. 
 
 Frame; Same u. Swift; Peek r. Frame; Whitney v. Graves. 
 Saw-mill. Crosby v. Lapouraille ; Hamilton v. Ives ; Same v. 
 
 Kingsbury ; Ives v. Hamilton ; Nye v. Raymond ; Page v. 
 
 Ferry; Phillips v. Page. 
 Saws. Buss V. Putney. 
 Saws, circular. Curtis v. Branch; Hoe o. Simpson; Lee v. 
 
 Blandy; Orr ?;. Burwell ; Spaulding «. Duff ; Same t). Page; 
 
 Tucker w. Spaulding; Wheeler u. Simpson. 
 Saw-set. Aiken v. Bemis. 
 Screw. Pierson v. Eagle Screw Co.
 
 INVENTIONS. 297 
 
 Screw-peg. Estabrook v. Dunbar. 
 
 Scythe-snaths. Alden v. Dewey. 
 
 Seats for circus. Allen v. City of Brooklyn; Jackson v. Allen; 
 Price V. Kelly. 
 
 Seed-sower. Brown v. Guild; Same v. Selby; Gaboon v. Ring; 
 Case v. Brown; Cragin v. Fowler; Ilolbrook v. Matthews; 
 Same r. Small ; Moore v. Thomas ; Sone v. Palmer ; Trader 
 V. ^Messmore. 
 
 Sewing-machine. Bachelder v. Moulton ; Bland, Ex parte; 
 Burdell v. Denig; Chabot v. American Button Hole, &c. 
 Co.; Cornely v. Henderickx ; Dibble v. Augur; Same v. 
 Sibley ; Domestic Sewing Machine Co. v. Hatfield ; Elli- 
 thorp V. Robertson; Ely v. McKay; Florence Sewing Ma- 
 chine Co. V. Grover and Baker Sewing Machine Co. ; Same 
 V. Singer Co. ; Fuller v. Goodrich; Same v. Yentzer; Galpin 
 V. Atwater ; Grover and Baker Sewing INIachine Co. v. 
 Butler; Same v. Sloat; Same v. Williams ; Haskell v. Shoe 
 Machine Manufacturing Co. ; Howe v. Morton ; Same v. 
 Underwood ; Same v. Williams ; Same v. Wooldredge ; 
 Johnson v. Root; Parham v. American Button Hole, &c. 
 Co.; Potter v. Braunsdorf; Same v. Crowell; Same v. 
 Davis Sewing Machine Co. ; Same v. Dixon ; Same v. Em- 
 pire Sewing Machine Co. ; Same v. Fuller ; Same v. Holland ; 
 Same v. Mack; Same v. Muller; Same v. Schenck; Same 
 V. Stevens; Same v. Whitney; Same r. Wilson; Sanford 
 V. Messer ; Singer i\ Braunsdorf; Same v. Walmesley; 
 Vose V. Singer; Wooster v. Sidenberg; Same u. Taylor. 
 
 Shade-fixtures. Bray v. Hartshorn; Hartshorn t\ Almy; Same 
 V. Shorey; Same v. Tripp; Vetter v. Leutzinger. 
 
 Shawl-strap. Crouch v. Roemer; Same v. Speer. 
 
 Shears, tailors'. Heinrich v. Luther. 
 
 Shearing sheep. Earl v. Harlow. 
 
 Shingle-machine. Earl v. Page; Same ». Sawyer; Evarts v. 
 Ford; Peck v. Bacon; Same v. Farrington. 
 
 Ships' armor. Heaton v. Quintard; Webb v. Quintard. 
 
 Sieve, wire. Adams and Westlake ]\Ianufacturing Co. v. St. 
 Louis Wire Goods Co. ; Dayton v. Wright. 
 
 Silk, sewing. Belding v. Turner. 
 
 Sizing-machine. Fuzzard Wadding, &c. Co. v. Dickinson.
 
 298 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Skates. Turrell v. Spaeth. 
 
 Skirts, hoop. Doughty v. Day; Same v. West; Same v. West, 
 &c. Co.; United States v. Doughty; Wilcox v. Komp; 
 Woven Tape Skirt Co., In re; Young v. Lippman. 
 
 Skirt-protector. McDonald v. Blackmer. 
 
 Slate, writing. Street v. Silver. 
 
 Sled-runners. Lockwood v. Lockwood. 
 
 Sleigh-shafts. Davy v. Morgan. 
 
 Sluice-fork. Teese v. Huntingdon. 
 
 Smut-raill. Cansler v. Eaton; Knox v. Murtha. 
 
 Soap, chemical. Lindsay v. Roraback. 
 
 Soap-making. Warren v. Cole. 
 
 Soda-powders. Rumford Chemical Works v. Hecker ; Same v. 
 Lauer ; Same v. Vice. 
 
 Soda-water. Bigelow v. Matthews. 
 
 Soda-water apparatus. Blaisdell v. Tufts. 
 
 Soles for shoes. Adamson v. Dedrick ; Foster v. Moore. 
 
 Sole-cutter. Weed v. Draper. 
 
 Spark-arrester. Pike v. Providence and Worcester Railroad. 
 
 Speaking-tube. Woolcocks r. Many. 
 
 Spoons and forks. Grosjean v. Peck, Stow, and Wilcox Co. 
 
 Springs, car. Goodyear v. New Jersey Central Railroad; Na- 
 tional Car Spring Co. v. Union Car Spring Co. 
 
 Spring, steel. Midkiff v. Boggess. 
 
 Staple, wire. Rogers v. Sargent. 
 
 Staves. Brammer v. Jones; May r. Chaffee; Sisson v. Gilbert. 
 
 Steamboat. Cutting v. Myers. 
 
 Steamboat staging. Converse v. Cannon. 
 
 Steam-generator. Bishchoff u. Wethered; Latta i;. Shawk. 
 
 Steel, tempering. Waterman v. Thompson; Same v. Wal- 
 lace. 
 
 Stone-breaking machine. Blake v. Eagle Works Manufactur- 
 ing Co.; Same v. Greenwood Cemetery; Same v. Raw- 
 son; Same v. Robertson; Same v. Stafford; Robertson v. 
 Blake. 
 
 Stone-channelling machine. Steam Cutter Co. v. Sheldon. 
 
 Stone-crushing machine. Smith v. Freyer. 
 
 Stone-cutting machine. Tilghraan v. Morse. 
 
 Stone-dressing machine. Gilmorez;. Golay; Wheeler t;. Billings.
 
 INVENTIONS. 299 
 
 Stoves. Buck v. Cobb; Same v. Gill; Same v. Hermance; De- 
 troit Stove Works v. Micliigaii Stove Co. ; Dudley v. May- 
 hew; Foote V. Silsby; Gold and Silver Ore, &c. Co. v. United 
 States, &c. Co.; Hailes v. Van Wormer; Hathaway v. 
 Roach; Hawks v. Swett; Hender.sou v. Cleveland, &c. Co. ; 
 Henry v. Francestown Soapstone Stove Co. ; Marston v. 
 Swett; Orr v. Badger; Same v. Littlefield; Same v. Mer- 
 rill; Perry v. Corning; Peterson v. Wooden; Rathbone v. 
 Orr; Reissner v. Anness; Root v. Ball; Ruggles v. Eddy; 
 Silsby V. Foote; Stanley v. AVhipple; Stuart y. Shantz; 
 Vance v. Campbell ; Wilson v. Janes. 
 
 Straw-cutter. Gale v. Nourse; Hovey v. Henry. 
 
 Sugar. Hunt v. Hoover; Union Sugar Refinery v. Matthieson; 
 Weston V. Nash. 
 
 Surgical operations. Morton v. New York Eye Infirmary. 
 
 SvLspender ends. Fisk v. Church. 
 
 Suspender straps. Greeley, Ex parte. 
 
 Suspenders. Cleveland v. Towle; Dawson v. FoUen. 
 
 Syringe. Morey v. Lockwood ; Richardson v. Lockwood. 
 
 T. 
 
 Table beverages. Rogers v. Ennis. 
 
 Tables, extension. Carter v. Messenger; Doherty v. Haynes. 
 
 Tables, folding. Munde v. Lambie. 
 
 Tailors' pressing-machine. Storrs v. Howe. 
 
 Tanning-machine. England v. Thompson. 
 
 Tape, arranging. Goff v. Stafford. 
 
 Telegraph. Bain v. Morse; Clura u. Brewer; Day v. Bankers, 
 &c. Telegraph Co. ; French v. Rogers ; ^lorse v. Bain 
 Same v. Oreilly; Oreilly v. Morse; Smith v. Clark 
 Same v. Cummings; Same v. Downing; Same v. Ely 
 Same v. Selden; United States Annunciator Co. v. Sander- 
 son; Western Telegraph Co. v. ^Magnetic Telegraph Co.; 
 Same v. Penniman. 
 
 Telephones, pneumatic signal. Gower, Ex parte, 15 Off. Gaz. 828. 
 
 Tent. United States v. Burns.
 
 300 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Thread. Johnson v. Willimantic, &c. Co. 
 
 Threshing-machine. Harmon v. Bird; Moffitt v. Gaar; Pitts v. 
 Jameson; Same v. Wemple; Same v. Whitman; Van Os- 
 trand v. Reed. 
 
 Timber frame. Hockholzer v. Eager. 
 
 Time-detector. Buerk v. Imhauser; Same v. Valentine. 
 
 Tobacco. Eppinger v. Richey. 
 
 Tobacco, labelled. Lorillard v. McDowell. 
 
 Tool-grinder. Hovey v. Stevens. 
 
 Tools. Campbell v. Barclay; Miller's Falls Co. v. Ives & Co. 
 
 Topsail-yards. Howes v. Nute. 
 
 Torpedoes. Roberts v. Reed Torpedo Co. 
 
 Tow-boats. Sullivan v. Redfield. 
 
 Tremolo attachment for organs. Hitchcock v. Tremaine; Saxe 
 V. Hammond; Tremaine v. Hitchcock. 
 
 Trucks, cars. Gregerson v. Imlay; Locomotive Engine Safety 
 Truck Co. V. Erie Railroad; Same v. Pennsylvania Rail- 
 road. 
 
 Truck-wheels, removing. Simpson v. Mad River Railroad. 
 
 Trunks. Gould r. Ballard; Vogler v. Semple. 
 
 Truss. Higgins v. Strong. 
 
 Tube-machine. LeRoy v. Tatham. 
 
 Tubes, flexible. Taylor v. Archer. 
 
 Tubes, leather. Pennock v. Dialogue. 
 
 Type. Hudson v. Draper. 
 
 u. 
 
 Umbrella. American Manufacturing Co. v. Lane. 
 Umbrella-case. Odiorne v. Denney. 
 
 V. 
 
 Valves. Bartholomew v. Sawyer. 
 
 Valves for governors. Judson v. Cope; Same v. Moore; Snow 
 
 V. Judson. 
 Valves for petroleum. Meissner v. Dovoe Manufactm'ing Co.
 
 INVENTIONS. 301 
 
 Valves for steam-engines. Ashcroft v. Boston and Lowell Rail- 
 road ; Morris v. IIuntiugLon ; Pacific Iron Works v. New- 
 hall; Sherman v. Champlain Transportation Co.; Sickels 
 i\ Borden; Same v. Evans; Same v. Falls Co.; Same ?;. 
 Gloucester Manufacturing Co. ; Same r. Mitchell; Same v. 
 Tileston ; Same v. Young. 
 
 Vault-covers. Lake v. Fitzgerald. 
 
 Vehicles. Hall o. Jones. 
 
 Veneers. Burr v. Gregory. 
 
 Ventilating rooms. Lyman Ventilating, &c. Co. v. Chamberlain; 
 Same v. Lalor. 
 
 w. 
 
 Wadding (see Sizing-Machine). Fuzzard Wadding Co. v. 
 
 Dickinson. 
 Wagons. Flood v. Ilicks; Halsey v. Garlick; Hick.s v. Kelsey; 
 
 Leonard v. Barnvim. 
 W^ agon-wheels. Young r. Hunter. 
 Wash-board. W'ayne v. Holmes; Same v. Winter. 
 Washing-machine. Cross v. Huntly; Eureka Co. v. Bailey 
 
 Washing Machine Co. ; Osborn v. Herrou. 
 Watch. Jurgensen v. Magnin. 
 Watch-chain. Keplinger v. De Young. 
 Water-closet. Earth Closet Co. v. Fenner. 
 W"ater-closet pan. Smith v. O'Connor; Same v. Pryor. 
 Water-supply. Holly i'. Union City. 
 Water-wheel. Black v. Stone; Blakenay v. Goode; Boyce v. 
 
 Dorr; Case v. Redfield; Holliday v. Rheem; Hotchkiss v. 
 
 Oliver; Hiatt v. Twomey; INIerchant v. Lewis; Parker 
 
 V. Bamker; Same v. Bigler; Same v. Brandt; Same v. Cor- 
 
 bin; Same v. Ferguson; Same v. Hatfield; Same v. Hawk; 
 
 Same v. Haworth; Same v. Hulme; Same v. Sears; Same 
 
 V. Stiles; Phillips v. Combstock; Rheem v. Holliday; Rich v. 
 
 Close; Swain Turbine Co. v. Ladd; Wintermute v. Red- 
 
 ington. 
 Weaver's harness. Kendall v. W^insor; Kendrick v. Emmons. 
 Weaving fabric. Smith v. Nichols.
 
 302 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Wells, making. Andrews v. Carman ; Same v. Denslow ; Same 
 y. Speer; Same v. Wright. 
 
 Well-tubes. Buttrick v. Park ; David v. Park. 
 
 Whips. Merriam v. Drake; Same v. Van Nest; Searls v. Van 
 Nest: Strong v. Noble. 
 
 Wind-wheels. Continental Windmill Co. v. Empire Windmill 
 Co. 
 
 Window-screen. Adjustable Window Screen Co. v. Boughton. 
 
 Window weather-guards. Wilson v. Marlow. 
 
 Winnowing-machine. Burrall v. Jewett ; Sanders v. Logan. 
 
 Wood-bending machine. Blanchard v. Putnam; Morris v. Bar- 
 rett; Same v. Royer. 
 
 Wood-shaping machine. Hale v. Stimpson. 
 
 Wood-splitting machine. Conover d. Dohrman ; Samer. Mers; 
 Same v. Rapp ; Same v. Roach; Johnson v. McCuUoch; 
 Mers V. Conover. 
 
 Wool-making. Agawam Co. v. Jordan ; Jordan v. Dobson; 
 Same v. Wallace. 
 
 Wool-oiling machine. Earl v. Dexter; Harwood f. MiH River 
 Co. 
 
 Wrenches. Cornell v. Downer and Bemis Brewing Co. ; Same 
 V. Littlejohn; Schumacher v. Cornell. 
 
 Wringer, clothes. Bailey Washing, &c. Machine Co. v. Lin- 
 coln; Forsyth v. Clapp; Metropolitan Washing, &c. Co. v. 
 Providence Tool Co. ; Metropolitan Wringing, &c. Co. v. 
 Young. 
 
 Writing-fluid. Stephens v. Felt. 
 
 Y. 
 
 Yarn, parti-coloring. Smith v. Higgins. 
 
 z. 
 
 Zinc. Wetherell v. New Jersey Zinc Co.; Same v. Passaic 
 
 Zinc Co. 
 Zinc-white. Jones v. Osgood.
 
 PART ly. 
 
 LIST OF DEFENDANTS.
 
 PART IV. 
 LIST OF DEFENDANTS. 
 
 Abbot, Rogers v. 
 Abbott, Howe v. 
 Abbotts, .Jenkins v. 
 Abrams, Isaac v. 
 Acton, Bancroft v. 
 Adams, Child v. 
 
 Herbert v. 
 Monce v. 
 Wilder v. 
 Adriance, Sprague v. 
 Aiken, Gilmore v. 
 Allen, Goodyear v. 
 Jackson v. 
 Nourse v. 
 Remington v. 
 Smith V. 
 White V. 
 AUis, Wise v. 
 Almy, Hartshorn v. 
 American Bush Co., Cornell v. 
 Am. Button Hole, &c. Co., Chabot v. 
 Parham r. 
 Am. Gauge Co., U. S. Gauge Co. t'. 
 Am. Hair Mfg. Co., Muscaa Hair 
 
 Mfg. Co. V. 
 Am. Tool & Machine Co., Am. H. & 
 
 L. Sp. Co. V. 
 Ames, Billings v. 
 
 Amesbury Nail Factory, Odiorne v. 
 Anderson, Masury v. 
 Androscoggin Pulp Co., Miller v. 
 Annan, Binney v. 
 Anness, Reissner r. 
 Anthes, United Nickel Co. v. 
 Antisdel, Hawes v. 
 
 Archer, Taylor v. 
 
 Arctic Oil Co., National Filter Oil Co.r. 
 
 Aronson, Hoffman v. 
 
 Asbestos Felting Co., United States & 
 F. Sal. F. Co. V. 
 
 Ashland Machine Co., Birdsell v. 
 
 Atlantic Middlings Co., Am. Mid- 
 dlings Co. V. 
 
 Atlantic Works, Brady v. 
 
 Atwater, Gal pin v. 
 Rich V. 
 
 Atwood, Carleton v. 
 
 Augur, Dibble v. 
 
 Aultman, Saxton o. 
 
 Austin, Cahart v. 
 
 B. 
 
 Bacon, Appleton v. 
 
 Peck V. 
 Badger, Orr v. 
 Bailey, Collender v. 
 
 Meyer r. 
 
 Stanley Rule, &c. Co. v. 
 Bailey Washing, &c. Co., Eureka 
 
 Co. V. 
 Bailie, Ball v. 
 Bain, Morse v. 
 Baker, Carter v. 
 Jacobs V. 
 Baker's Admrs., Smith v. 
 Baldwin Mfg. Co., Whipple r. 
 Ball, Root V. 
 Ballard, Gould v. 
 Baltimore & Ohio R.R., Knight r. 
 Baltimore & Susquehanna R.K., Stimp- 
 son V. 
 
 20
 
 306 
 
 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Bamker, Parker v. 
 
 Bankers', &c. Telegraph Co., Day v. 
 
 Barber, Guidet v. 
 
 Barclay, Campbell v. 
 
 McMillan v. 
 Bard, Rapp v. 
 Bare, Moore v. 
 Barnard, Gibson v. 
 
 Parker v. 
 Barnes, Burns v. 
 
 Hammer v. 
 Barney, Woodruff v. 
 Barnum, Leonard v. 
 
 Wilson V. 
 Barrett, Morris v. 
 Stearns v. 
 Barry, Thompson, &c. v. 
 Barstow Stove Co., Forbes v. 
 Bartholomae, Gottfried v. 
 Battell, Tomlinson v. 
 Batten, Heilner v. 
 Bayliss, Mann ?'. 
 
 Bay State Screw Co., Newbury v. 
 Beale, Pennock ». 
 Beard, Johnson v. 
 McComb V. 
 Beardsley, Kirby v. 
 Beckford, Caliill v. 
 Beecher, Wilbur v. 
 Beers, Blanchard v. 
 Beeston, Pentlarge v. 
 Belknap Mills, Crompton v. 
 Bell, Davis v. 
 Bemis, Aiken v. 
 Benham, Ingersoll v. 
 Benjamin, Goodyear D. V. Co. v. 
 Bennett, Motte v. 
 Benson, Gates v. 
 Berger, Norwalk Lock Co. v. 
 Bernard, Baldwin v. 
 Berry, Goodyear v. 
 Bertrand, Calkins v. 
 Betts, Gibson v. 
 
 Beverly Rubber Co., Goodyear v. 
 Bicknell, Brooks v. 
 Bigler, Parker v. 
 Billings, Wheeler v. 
 Binney, Union Paper Bag Co. v. 
 Bird, kail v. 
 
 Harmon v. 
 Birt, Loudon v. • 
 
 Bishop, Goodyear v. 
 Bixb3', Sawyer v. 
 Blackmer, McDonald v. 
 Bladen, Treadwell v. 
 
 Watson V. 
 Blake, Robertson v. 
 Blanchard, Rows v. 
 Blandy, Lee t'. 
 Blunt, Allen i'. 
 Bobo, Maltby v. 
 Bodfish, Eastman v. 
 Boggess, Midkiff v. 
 Bokee, Carlton v. 
 Boker, White v. 
 Bonney, Bell v. 
 Borden, Sickels v. 
 Boston, Tyler v. 
 
 Boston & Albany R.R., Lightner v. 
 Boston Belting Co., Chaffee v. 
 
 Day V. 
 Boston Diatite Co., Florence Mfg. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Boston Elastic Fabrics Co., Carew v. 
 Boston & Fair Haven Iron Works, 
 
 Child V. 
 Boston & Fair Haven Iron Works, 
 
 Montague v. 
 Boston & Lowell R.R., Ashcroft v. 
 Boston & Providence R.R., Winans v. 
 Boston Machine Co., Tufts v. 
 Boughton, Adjustable Window Screen 
 
 Co. t). 
 Bourne, Goodyear v. 
 Boustield, Clark v. 
 Bowman, Read v. 
 Boyer, Butch v. 
 Bracheo, Doubleday v. 
 Bradford, Forbush v. 
 Bradley, Hussey v. 
 Bradley Mfg. Co., Dorsey, R. H. R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Braintree Mfg. Co., Carver v. 
 Bramhill, Tuck v. 
 Branch, Curtis v. 
 Brandt, Hoffheims v. 
 Brannan, Shelly v. 
 Brant, Parker v. 
 Braunsdorf, Potter v. 
 Singer v. 
 Bray, Kempton v. 
 Breck, Jackson v.
 
 LIST OF DEFENDANTS. 
 
 307 
 
 Brewer, Clum v. 
 Bridgeport Brass Co., Miller, v. 
 Broadbent, Middlebrook v. 
 Brockway, Darst v. 
 Brodie, McCoinb v. 
 Brooklyn, Allen v. 
 Bliss V. 
 Palmer v. 
 Brooks, Lightiier v. 
 Brower, State v. 
 Brown, Boyd v. 
 
 Bridge v. 
 
 Cahill V. 
 
 Case V. 
 
 Davoll V. 
 
 Haven v. 
 
 Phelps V. 
 
 Piper V. 
 Bryan, McGaw v. 
 Buck, Roberts v. 
 BuUard, Byam v. 
 Burden, Corning f. 
 Burke, Adams v. 
 
 Boyden y. 
 Burkhardt, Powder Co. v. 
 Burnham, Jones v. 
 Bum.s, United States v. 
 Burr, McCay v. 
 Burwell, Orr v. 
 
 Busch, Chicago Fruit House Co. v. 
 Bushnell, Avery v. 
 Bus.sing. Gilbert & B. Mfg. Co. v. 
 Butler, Grover & B. S. M. Co. v. 
 
 Vale V. 
 Butterfield, Gallahue v. 
 Byam, Brooks v. 
 
 Caldwell, Walter A. Wood & Co. v. 
 
 Calhoun, Wooster v. 
 
 California Powder Works, Atlantic 
 
 Giant P. Co. v. 
 Calvert, Nesmith v. 
 Came, Collender v. 
 Cammerrer, Turrell i'. 
 Campbell, Dobson v. 
 Vance v. 
 Candee, Day v. 
 Cannon, Converse v. 
 
 Carbon Stove Co., Thatcher Heating 
 
 Co. 17. 
 
 Card, Dodge v. 
 Carman, Andrews v. 
 Carroll, Anthony v. 
 Carter, Sargent v. 
 Cartter, Westlake v. 
 Cary, Day v. 
 
 Goodyear v. 
 Celluloid Harness Trimming Co., Al- 
 bright V. 
 Central Pac. R.R., Vaughan v. 
 Chaffee, Goodyear v. 
 
 May V. 
 Chamberlain, Emigh v. 
 
 Lyman Vent., &c. Co. v. 
 Chambers, Evans v. 
 Champlain Trans. Co., Sherman v. 
 Chaskel, New York Rubber Co. v. 
 Cheever, Woodworth v. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R.R., Emigh v. 
 Chicago Mfg. Co., Dane v. 
 Chicago & N. W. R.R., Sayles r. 
 Christian, Am. Middlings Purifving 
 
 Co. V. 
 Christy, Howard v. 
 Church, Fisk v. 
 Cincinnati, &c. Co., Stillwell, &c. 
 
 Co. V. 
 City of Brooklyn, Allen v. 
 Bliss V. 
 Guidet V. 
 City of Elizabeth, Am. Nicolson Pave- 
 ment Co. V. 
 City of Louisville, Bigelow v. 
 Clapp, Forsyth v. 
 
 Wilson Packing Co. v. 
 Clark, Garretson v. 
 
 Gong Bell Mfg. Co. v. 
 
 Smith V. 
 Cleveland, &c. Co., Henderson v. 
 Cleveland Rolling Jlills Co., Wood v. 
 Clipper Mower, &c. Co., Wheeler v. 
 Close, Rich i". 
 Cobb, Buck V. 
 Coe, Bates v. 
 Cole, Hoe v. 
 
 Warren v. 
 Collins, Joliffe v. 
 
 Serrell r. 
 
 Tavlor i;.
 
 308 
 
 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Combstock, Phillips v. 
 
 Comey, Fitz v. 
 
 Commissioner of Patents, Hull v. 
 
 Marsh v. 
 Commissioners of Hamilton Co., Ja- 
 cobs V. 
 Congress Rubber Co., Goodyear v. 
 Conover, Mers v. 
 Coolidge, Birdsall v. 
 Cook, Eames v. 
 Forbush v. 
 Geiger v. 
 Gibson v. 
 Hawes v. 
 Woodworth v. 
 Cooper, Isaacs v. 
 
 Renwick v. 
 Shaw V. 
 Cope, Judson v. 
 
 Copeland, Clark Patent. &c. Co. v. 
 Corbin, Hopkins, &c. Mfg. Co. v. 
 
 Parker v. 
 Cornell, Gay v. 
 
 Schumacher v. 
 Corning, Burden v. 
 Perry v. 
 
 Troy Iron & Nail Factory c 
 Cortlan, Larabee v. 
 Cory, Liddle v. 
 Cowing, Gould's Mfg. Co. v 
 Cowperthwait, Burr v. 
 Craig, Fisher v. 
 
 Crane, Union P. Bag Mac. Co. v. 
 Cross, Dennis v. 
 Crowell, Potter v. 
 Cummings, Gillespie v. 
 
 Smith V. 
 Cunningham, McCully v. 
 
 Watson 17. 
 Curtis, Holden v. 
 
 Woodworth i;. 
 Cutter, Ashcroft v. 
 Read v. 
 Whittemore v. 
 
 D. 
 
 Dane, Irwin v. 
 Danforth, Dyson v. 
 Daniels, Bell v. 
 
 Darling, Kelleher v. 
 Davis, Goodyear D. V. Co. v. 
 Morse v. 
 Schuessler v. 
 Davis Sewing M. Co., Potter v. 
 Day, Doughty v. 
 
 Goodyear v. 
 
 Hartshorn v. 
 
 Seligman v. 
 
 Suj-dam v. 
 Dayton, Jordan v. 
 Dedrick, Adamson v. 
 Deener, Cochrane v. 
 De Groot, Langdon v. 
 Denig, Burdell v. 
 Denmead, Winans v. 
 Denney, Odiorne v. 
 Dennis, Edd\- v. 
 Denslow, Andrews v. 
 Derringer, Pettibone v. 
 Devel, Tyler r. 
 Devoe Mfg. Co., Meissner v. 
 Dewey, Alden v. 
 Dexter, Earl v. 
 De Young, Keplinger v. 
 Dialogue, Pennock v. 
 Dickerson, Page v. 
 Dickey, Roberts v. 
 
 Dickinson, Fuz. Wadding, &c. Co. v, 
 Dinsmore, Woodward v. 
 Dixon, Potter v. 
 Dobson, Jordan v. 
 Dodd, Cowan v. 
 Dodge, Eunson v. 
 Marsh v. 
 Russell V. 
 Saxton V. 
 Dodge & S. Mfg. Co., Kirby v. 
 Marsh v. 
 Dohrman, Conover v. 
 Dolan, Aiken v. 
 Dorr, Boyce v. 
 Doughty, United States v. 
 Douglass, Magic Ruffle Co. v. 
 Dover Stamping Co., Munroe v. 
 Downer & B. Brewing Co., Cornell v. 
 Downing, Smith v. 
 Dows, Bowker v. 
 Drake, Jlerriam v. 
 Draper, Hudson v. 
 Prouty V.
 
 LIST OF DEFENDANTS. 
 
 309 
 
 Draper, Weed «. 
 
 Dubois, Railroad Co. v. 
 
 Du Brul, Miller, &c. Mfg. Co. v. 
 
 Duchesne, Brown v. 
 
 Duff, Spaulding v. 
 
 l)unbar, Estabrook p. 
 
 Goodyear v. 
 
 Myers v. 
 Duryee, Burr v. 
 
 E. 
 
 Eager, Hock hoi zer v. 
 
 Eagle Screw Co., Pierson v. 
 
 Eagle Works Mfg. Co., Blake v. 
 
 Eames, Godfrey v. 
 
 Earle, Metropolitan W. M. Co. v. 
 
 Eastham, JIurphy r. 
 
 East Hampton Bell Co., Bevin v. 
 
 East Hampton Kubber Thread Co., 
 
 Elastic Fabric Co. v. 
 East Tennessee, &c. R. R., Vaughan v. 
 Eaton, Cansler t*. 
 
 Evans v. 
 
 Winans v. 
 Eddy, Byam v. 
 
 Dennis v. 
 
 Ruggles V. 
 Edmonds, Pitts v. 
 Edwards, Adams v. 
 Stone r. 
 Woodworth t*. 
 Ege, Ogle V. 
 Eldridge, Blanchard r. 
 Elizabeth, Am. Nic. Pav. Co. t». 
 Elkinton, Stainthorp r. 
 Elliott. Smith v. 
 
 Elm City Co., Magic Ruffle Co. v. 
 Elniira Nobles Mfg. Co., De Witt r. 
 Elsas, Bantz v. 
 Ely, Smith r. 
 Emerson, Hogg v. 
 Emery, Xusbaum v. 
 Emmett, Whitney r. 
 Emmons, Kendrick r. 
 Empire S. M. Co., Potter v. 
 Empire Trans. Co., Williams v. 
 Empire Windmill Co., Continental 
 
 W. M. Co. V. 
 Ennis, Rogers v. 
 
 Erie R. R., Loco. Eng. Safety Tr. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Ernest, Cook v. 
 
 McComb w. 
 Esterbrook Co., Morse Fountain Pen 
 
 Co. r. 
 Estey, Burdett v. 
 Evans, Goodyear v. 
 
 Sickels V. 
 Everett, Barry v. 
 
 Faber, Reckendorfer v. 
 
 Falke, Poppenhusen v. 
 
 Falls Co., Sickels v. 
 
 Farr, Byam v. 
 
 Farrington, Peck v. 
 
 Fassman, Johnson v. 
 
 Fay & Co., Smith v. 
 
 Felt, Stevens v. 
 
 Fenner, Earth Close* Co. v. 
 
 Ferguson, Parker v. 
 
 Ferry, Page v. 
 
 Fibre Disintegrating Co., Am. Wood 
 
 Paper Co. r. 
 Field, Jones v. 
 First Nat. Bank, Helm v. 
 Fisher, Craig v. 
 
 Whitely v. 
 Fiske, Boston Mfg. Co. v. 
 Brooks V. 
 Mood}' V. 
 Fitzgerald, Lake v. 
 Flagg, Goodyear D. V. Co. v. 
 Fletcher, Rouse v. 
 Fogg, McDougall t'. 
 Foilen, Dawson v. 
 Folsom, Tarr v. 
 Foote, Silsby v. 
 Ford, Evarts v. 
 Fowler, Bennet v. 
 Cragin v. 
 Frame, Myers v. 
 
 Peek V. 
 Francestown Soapstone Stove Co., 
 
 Henry v. 
 Frayer, Smith v. 
 Frost, Foote v. 
 Kittle V.
 
 310 
 
 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Fuller, Potter v. 
 
 Fulton's Sons & Co., Scaife v. 
 
 G. 
 
 Gaar, Moffitt v. 
 Gage, Hawes v. 
 Herring v. 
 Tompkins v. 
 Gammons, Graham v. 
 Gardiner, Goodyear D. V. Co. v. 
 Gardner & K. Air Brake Co., West- 
 
 inghouse v. 
 Garlick, Halsey v. 
 Garnhart, Rice v. 
 Garratt, Siebert v. 
 Garrett, Robertson v. 
 Garretson, Ta3dor v. 
 Gas Consumers' Assoc, Herring v. 
 ^ Catling, Newell v. ■. 
 Gaylor,'Wilder v. 
 Gaylord Mfg. Co., Bliss v. 
 Gibson, Barnard v. 
 Gifford, Gibson v. 
 Gilbert, Sisson v. 
 
 Gilbert & Barker Mfg. Co., Clough v. 
 Gill, Atterbury v. 
 Buck V. 
 Wells V. 
 Gilman, Wonson v. 
 Gilpin, Bloomer v. 
 Glendale El. Fab. Co., Smith v. 
 GlenFalls, &c.Co., Am.Wood P. Co. v. 
 Click, Wright V. 
 Gloucester Mfg. Co., Sickels v. 
 Goddard, Stein v. 
 Godfrey, Fames v. 
 Goetinger, Geier v. 
 Golay, Gilmore v. 
 Goode, Blakenay v. 
 Goodrich, Fuller v. 
 Goodwin, Ryan v. 
 Goodyear, Atlantic Giant P. Co. v. 
 
 Bourne v. 
 
 Mc Barney v. 
 
 Prov. Rubber Co. v. 
 Groodyear D. V. Co., Celluloid Mfg. 
 
 Co. «. 
 (Joodyear D. V. Co., Gardner v. 
 Smith V. 
 Sailings v. 
 
 Goodvear Rubber Co., Gutta-percha 
 
 Co." V. 
 Gould, H. W., Ex parte. 
 Gould, Rees v. 
 
 Washburn v. 
 Govver, Ex parte. 
 Graham, Mason v. 
 Grand Street & N. R.R., Mowry v. 
 Graves, Whiting i:. 
 Gray, Davis v. 
 
 Great Western Q. M. Co., Knox v. 
 Greeley, Ex parte. 
 Green, Turner v. 
 Greenwald, Jenkins v. 
 Greenwood, Hotchkiss v. 
 Greenwood Cemetery, Blake v. 
 Gregory, Burr v. 
 
 Farrington v. 
 Griffeth, Blandy v. 
 
 Collender v. 
 
 Decker v. 
 Griffin, Greaton v. 
 Griggs, Cox V. 
 Grosvenor, Gear v. 
 Grote, Decker v. 
 Grover & Baker S. M. Co., Florence 
 
 S. M. Co. V. 
 Gugenheim, Barry v. 
 
 Penn. Salt Co. v. 
 Guild. Brown v. 
 Sawin v. 
 Gunther, Schillinger v. 
 
 H. 
 
 Hagaman, Wells v. 
 Hagerstown Agric- Mfg. Co., Bird- 
 sell V. 
 Haight, Bliss v. 
 
 Thompson v. 
 Hall, Barrett v. 
 
 Brown v. 
 
 Dickinson v. 
 
 Pitts V. 
 
 Sarven v. 
 
 Woodworth V. 
 Hallock, Parker v. 
 Ilalsted, Stover v. 
 Hamilton. Ives v. 
 
 Hamilton Mfg. Co., Badische Anilin, 
 &c. Co. V.
 
 LIST OF DEFENDANTS. 
 
 311 
 
 Hammond, King v. 
 Saxe V. 
 Hank's Case. 
 Hank'nl)eck, Armstrong v. 
 Hansel, Groff v. 
 Hapgood. Sayles v. 
 Harbert, National Hay Rake Co. v. 
 Harlow, Earl i'. 
 Harnden, Roberts v. 
 Harris, Gibson v. 
 Hartell, Tiigliman v. 
 Hartford Carpet Co., Lowell Mfg. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Hartshorn, Bray v. 
 Day V. 
 Harwood, Mahn v. 
 Haskell, Mabie i'. 
 Hatch, Am. Nicolson Pav. Co. v. 
 HatGeld, Domestic S. M. Co. v. 
 
 Parker v. 
 Haven, U. S. & F. Sal. F. Co. v. 
 Hawk, Parker v. 
 Hawkins, La Baw v. 
 
 Olcott V. 
 Hawley, Mitchell v. 
 Haworth, Parker v. 
 Hawxhurst. Walker ?'. 
 Hayden, Suflfulk Mfg. Co. v. 
 Haynes, Blanchard v. 
 
 Doherty v. 
 Hays, Bellas v. 
 Hay^vard, Chaffee v. 
 
 Day V. 
 Head, Stevens v. 
 Heald, Rice v. 
 
 Hecker, Riimford Ch. "Works v. 
 Heft, Am. Wood Paper Co. v. 
 Helms, Sweetzer v. 
 Henderickx, Comely v. 
 Henrici, Shoup v. 
 Henry, Hovey v. 
 Herbert, Foss v. 
 Hermance, Buck v. 
 Herron, Osborn v. 
 Hettick, Evans v. 
 Hickey, Putnam v. 
 Wright V. 
 Hicks, Bussey v. 
 Flood V. 
 Williams v. 
 Higgins, Badische Anilin, &c. Co. v. 
 
 Higgins, Smith v. 
 
 Web.'iter Loom Co. v. 
 Hill, Robertson v. 
 Hills, Goodyear v. 
 Hinkley, Brown v. 
 Hitchcock, Tremaine v. 
 Kite, McKernan v. 
 Hodge, Robinson v. 
 Hodges, .Jones v. 
 Hoelier, Hoeltge v. 
 Hogg, Am. Saddle Co. v. 
 
 ?3merson v. 
 Holdredge, Manvel v. 
 Holenshade, Schwarzel v. 
 Holland, Potter v. 
 Hoi ley, Aultman v. 
 Holliday, Rheem v. 
 Hollings, Ashcroft v. 
 Holmes, Gear v. 
 
 AVallace v. 
 
 Wayne v. 
 Hoover, Hunt v. 
 Houghton, Hill v. 
 Housinger, Goodyear v. 
 Howard, Ames v. 
 
 Cook V. 
 
 Rubber Tip, &c. Co. v. 
 
 Spring V. 
 Howe, Gardiner v. 
 
 Storrs V. 
 Howland, Buchanan v. 
 Hubbard, Black v. 
 Hudson, Draper v. 
 Hudson River R.R., Hodge v. 
 Hull, Ayling v. 
 Hullihen, Goodyear v. 
 Hulme, Parker v. 
 Hul.shizer, Gray v. 
 Humiston, Staintborp v. 
 Hunt, Bedford v. 
 Hollidap. 
 Kernodle v. 
 Hunter, Allen v. 
 Foy V. 
 Young V. 
 Huntingdon, Teese v. 
 Huntington, Morris v. 
 Himtly, Cross v. 
 Hurd Paper Bag Co., Arkell v. 
 Hurley, Rose v. 
 Hutchinson, Whipple v.
 
 312 
 
 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Hyde, Carver v. 
 
 Tyler v. 
 Hyndman, Eoots r. 
 
 111. Cent. R.R., see Cawood Patent 
 
 Turrill v. 
 m. Mfg. Co., Dane v. 
 Inihauser, Buerk v. 
 Imlay, Grejijerson v. 
 Indiana & St. L. R.R., Dunham v. 
 Ireland, Goodyear D. V. Co. v. 
 Iron Mountain R.R., Hodge v. 
 Ives, Bruff v. 
 
 Gold V. 
 
 Hamilton v. 
 
 Miller's Falls Co. v. 
 
 Jacobs, Blancliard Gunstock Co. v. 
 
 Thompson v. 
 Jacques, Wells v. 
 Jagger, ISIany v. 
 James, Gray v. 
 Jameson, Pitts v. 
 Janes, Wilson v. 
 Jeffrej', McClure r. 
 Jenkins, Am. Nicolson Pav. Co. v. 
 Jennings, Dalton v. 
 Jewett, Burrall v. 
 Johnson, Jenkins v. 
 Nevins v. 
 Yuengling v. 
 Johnston Harvester Co., Ketchum, Sec. 
 
 Co. w. 
 Joliet Mfg. Co , Adams v. 
 Jones, Adams v. 
 
 Brammer v. 
 
 Bullock P. P. Co. V. 
 
 Hall V. 
 
 Livingston v. 
 
 Morehead v. 
 
 Sewall V. 
 Jordan, Agawam Co. v. 
 
 Evans v. 
 Judd, Middletown Tool Co. v. 
 Judson, Snow v. 
 
 K. 
 
 KanowTS, Reutgen v. 
 Kear, Hatten v. 
 Keith, United Nickel Co. v. 
 Kelly, Lippincott v. 
 
 Price V. 
 Kelsey, Hicks v. 
 Kennedy, Cole v. 
 Kennedy Mfg. Co., Clark v. 
 Kentucky, Patterson v. 
 Kenyon, Elkins v. 
 Kershaw, North v. 
 Keystone Bridge Co., Reeves v. 
 Kimball, Lightner v. 
 King, Werner v. 
 Kingsbury, Hamilton v. 
 Kingsland, McClurg v. 
 Kinsman, Parkhurst v. 
 Kirby, Whitely v. 
 Kissling, Murphy v. 
 Kitson, Whitehead v. 
 Kleinknecht, Wicke v. . 
 Konip, Wilcox v. 
 Kremer, Evans v. 
 
 L. 
 
 Ladd, Swain Turbine Co. v. 
 
 Lalor, Lyman Vent., &c. Co. v. 
 
 Lambie, Munde v. 
 
 Lane, American Mfg. Co. v. 
 
 Lapoui'aille, Crosby v. 
 
 l.arned, Sargent v. 
 
 Latchem, Mullikin v. 
 
 Lathrop, Russell v. 
 
 Lauer, Rumford Ch. Works i'. 
 
 Lawrence Felting Co., U. S. & F. Sal. 
 
 F. Co. V. 
 Lehigh Zinc Co., Burrows v. 
 Leland, Union Paper Collar Co. v. 
 Leonard, Williams v. 
 Leroy, Tatham v. 
 Leutzinger, Vetter v. 
 Lewis, Lowell v. 
 
 Merchant v. 
 Lincoln, Bailey AVashing, &c. Co. v. 
 Lindfay, Foster v. 
 Lippincott, Rich v. 
 Lippmau, Egbert v.
 
 LIST OP DEFENDANTS. 
 
 313 
 
 Lippman, Young v. 
 
 Littell, Kerosene Lamp Heater Co. v. 
 
 Little, Park r. 
 
 Littlctield, Orr v. 
 
 Littlejolin, Cornell v. 
 
 Lobdell, Burleigh R. D. Co. r. 
 
 Lockwood, Lockwood r. 
 
 Morcn' V. 
 
 Kithardson v. 
 Logan, Sanders v. 
 Lombard, Am. Whip Co. v. 
 Loriug, Tathain v. 
 Louisville, Bigelow v. 
 Louisville Cement Co., King ». 
 Lounsbury, Union Mfg. Co. v. 
 Lovejoy, Shaw & Wilcox Co. v. 
 Lowbev, Tatham v. 
 Lowell Mfg. Co., Morris v. 
 Loweree, Knox v. 
 Lunsford, Goodyear v. 
 Luther, Heinrich v. 
 
 M. 
 
 Mack, Potter v. 
 
 Mad River R.R., Simpson v. 
 
 Magnetic Tel. Co., Western T^nion 
 
 Tel. Co. V. 
 Magnin, Jurgenson t". 
 Mallory, Russell & E. Mfg. Co. v. 
 Manchester Print Works, Aiken v. 
 Manhattan Elevator, &c. Co., Sykes v. 
 Manufacturing Co., Blank v. 
 Manufacturing Co., Russell & E. Mfg. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Manj', McCormick v. 
 Sizer v. 
 Woolcocks f. 
 Marden, Dunbar v. 
 Marlow, Wilson v. 
 Marsh, Dorsey R. H. R. Co. r. 
 
 Moore v. 
 
 Seymour v. 
 Marshall, Smith v. 
 Mason, Ba'ker v. 
 
 Dean v. 
 
 Graham v. 
 
 Rowley v. 
 Mass. Arms Co., Colt v. 
 Mast, Ingels v. 
 
 Matthews, Bigclow v. 
 Goodyear v. 
 Holbrook v. 
 Mattheys, Cooper v. 
 Matthieson, Union Sugar Ref. v. 
 Maudelbaum, King v. 
 Mayhew, Dudley v. 
 Mayor of New York, Ransom v. 
 M'Alpin, Bcyd v. 
 McBarney, Goodyear v. 
 McCabe, Johnson v. 
 McClelland, Smith v. 
 McCone, Coolidge v. 
 McConnick, Davis v. 
 
 Hussey v. 
 
 Seymour v. 
 
 Wheeler v. 
 
 Wilder v. 
 McCulloch, Bell v. 
 
 Johnson v. 
 
 Pickering v. 
 McDonald, Birdsell v. 
 McDowell, Lorillard, &c. v. 
 McKay, El v v. 
 McLanahan, Nellis v. 
 McMillan, Wrights. 
 McMurray, Jones v. 
 McNeal, Howes v. 
 McQuewan, Bloomer v. 
 Mellor, Francis v. 
 Mendelsohn, Thompson v. 
 Mercer, Smith v. 
 Meredith, McDowell v. 
 Merriam, Kittle v. 
 Merrill, Rufus S. 
 Merrill, Jones v. 
 
 Orr V. 
 Merrimack Felting Co., U. S. & F. 
 
 Sal. F. Co. t'. 
 Merrimack Hat Co., Sanford v. 
 Mers, Conover v. 
 Messer, Sanford v. 
 Messinger, Carter v. 
 Messmore, Trader t?. 
 Metro. R.R., Rubber Step Co. v. 
 Mich. Southern, &c. R.R., Turrill r. 
 Wood V. 
 Michigan Stove Co., Detroit Stove 
 
 Works V. 
 Middlesex Co., Whipple v. " 
 Millinger, Bloomer i".
 
 814 
 
 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Miller, Read r. 
 
 Sangster v. 
 
 Waterbury Brass Co. v. 
 Mill River, &c. Co., Harwood v. 
 Mitchell, Cowan v. 
 Hawley v. 
 Sickels V. 
 Tilghman v. 
 Mixter, Gorham v. 
 Monson, &c. Co., Ely v. 
 Montague v. Boston & F. Iron Works v. 
 Moon, Piper v. 
 Moore, Foster v. 
 Judson V. 
 
 Plastic Slate Roofing Co. v. 
 Morehead, Evans v. 
 Jones V. 
 Morehouse, Brooks v. 
 Morey, Case v. 
 Morgan, Barnes v. 
 Davy V. 
 Oliver v. 
 Morris, United States v. 
 Morrison, West v. 
 
 Woodward v. 
 Morse, Bain v. 
 
 Morse Twist Drill Co. v. 
 Oreilly v. 
 Tilghman v. 
 Morton, Howe v. 
 Moulton, Bachelder v. 
 Mowbray, Atlantic Giant Powd. Co. v. 
 Mowrj', Whitney v. 
 Moyer, Dixon v. 
 Mullee, Goodyear v. 
 Muller, Potter v. 
 Munson, Black v. 
 
 Tillotson V. 
 Murphy, Union Paper Bag Mac. Co. v. 
 Murry, Ball v. 
 Murtha, Knox v. 
 Musgrove, Ingersoll v. 
 Myers, Cutting v. 
 Dunbar v. 
 Pennsvlvania Salt Co. v. 
 
 N. 
 
 Nash, Weston v. 
 
 National Bauk Note Co.. Tappan v. 
 
 National Rubber Co., Cohn v. 
 
 National Shoe Tip Pr. Co., Am. Shoe 
 Tip, &c. Co. V. 
 
 Negus, Bliss v. 
 
 Nelson, Dalton v. 
 Herring v. 
 
 Newark India-rubber Co., Day v. 
 
 New BruQswick Carpet Co., Web- 
 ster V. 
 
 Newell, Gatling v. 
 Nichols V. 
 Union Paper B. M. Co. v. 
 
 New EnglaTid Car Spring Co., Day v. 
 
 Newhall, Pacific Iron Works v. 
 
 New Jersey Centr. R.R., Goodyear v. 
 
 New Jersey Zinc Co., Wetherill v. 
 
 Newton, Cammeyer v. 
 Howe V. 
 
 New York, Ransom v. 
 
 New York Belting Co., Decker v. 
 
 New York & B. Brass Co., Waterbury 
 Brass Co. v. 
 
 New York & Erie R.R., Winans v. 
 
 New York Ej'e Infirmarj', Morton v. 
 
 New York Gutta-Percha Co., Good- 
 year V. 
 
 New York Gutta-Percha Co., Poppen- 
 husen v. 
 
 New York & Harlem R.R , Hodge ». 
 AViuans v. 
 
 Nichols, Smith v. 
 
 Nicolson Pavement Co., City of Eliza- 
 beth V. 
 
 Nicolson Pavement Co., Jenkins v. 
 
 Nixon, Union Paper Bag Mac. Co. P. 
 
 Noble, Strong v. 
 
 Nock Philp V. 
 
 Norcross, Brooks v. 
 
 Norfolk, Peabody v. 
 
 Norwich & W. R.R., Imlay v. 
 
 North, Yale, &c. Co. v. 
 
 North Missouri R.R., Hodge V. 
 
 Nourse, Gale v. 
 
 Noyes, Jones v. 
 
 Richardson v. 
 
 Nute, Howes v. 
 
 o. 
 
 Oakville Co., Am. Pin Co. v. 
 Ocean Mills, Pearl v.
 
 LIST OF DEFENDANTS. 
 
 315 
 
 O'Connor, Smith v. 
 
 Odiorne, Troy I. & N. Fact. v. 
 
 Ogden, ColKii v. 
 
 Ilaselden v. 
 Oliver, Hotcliiviss v. 
 Ophir Silver, &c. Co., Brodie v. 
 Oreilly, Morse v. 
 Organ Co., Hammond v. 
 Orr, Beane v. 
 
 Rathbone v. 
 Orvis, Hall v. 
 Osborne, Seymour v. 
 Osgood, Goodyear D. V. Co. v. 
 
 Jones V. 
 Ostrander. Jones v. 
 
 Packard, Spring v. 
 Page, Earl v. 
 
 Phillips i»- 
 Spaulding v. 
 Paine, Vannini v. 
 Palmer, Davis v. 
 Guidet V. 
 Lester v. 
 Sone V. 
 Park, Buttrick v- 
 
 David V. 
 Park, &c. Co., Klein v- 
 Parker, Wondcock v. 
 Parker & W. Mfg. Co., nopkin.s, &c. 
 
 Mfg. Co. V. 
 Parkhurst, Kinsman v. 
 Parks, Booth v. 
 Parrott, Treadwcll v. 
 Pa.ssaic Zinc Co., Wetherill v. 
 Patton, Sloat v. 
 Smith V. 
 Patrick, Clough v. 
 Pearce, Eickemeyer Co. v. 
 Mulford V. 
 Nichols V. 
 Smith I'. 
 Peck, First National Bank v. 
 Knowles v. 
 State V- 
 Zane v. 
 Peck, Stow, & W. Co., Grosjean v. 
 Peddie, Eunson v. 
 Peebles, Collins v. 
 
 < Pendleton, Van Hook v. 
 Pennell, Kimer v. 
 
 Penninian, Western Union Tel. Co. v. 
 Peimock. J. L. 
 Penn. li.li., Loc. Eng. Safety Tr. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Perego, Birdsell v. 
 Perry, Goodyear D. V. Co. v. 
 
 Littlelield v. 
 Peterson, Wonson v. 
 Petry, Frink v. 
 Phelps, Goodyear v. 
 
 India-rubber Comb Co. t;. 
 Teese v. 
 Philadelphia Fire Ex. Co., Northwest 
 
 Fire Ex. Co. v. 
 Philadelphia & Wilmington R.R., Du- 
 bois V. 
 Phillips, Pickering v. 
 I'hcenix Iron Co., Keystone Bridge 
 
 Co. V. 
 Pierpont, Stevens v. 
 Piper, Brown v. 
 Place, Russell v. 
 Platts, I'2x parte. 
 Pond, Renwick v. 
 Stimpson v. 
 Porter, Vaughan v. 
 Potomska Mills, Draper v. 
 Potter, Pike v. 
 Pratt, Ball v. 
 
 Preterre, Goodyear D. V. Co. v. 
 Prime, Brandon Mfg. Co. v. 
 Prior, Smith v. 
 Pritchard, Meyer v. 
 
 Stevens v. 
 Providence Rubber Co., Goodyear v. 
 Providence Tool Co., Henr3- v. 
 
 Metropolitan W. 
 M. Co. V. 
 Providence & W. R.R., Pike v. 
 Puitz & Walkley Co., Union Paper 
 
 Bag Co. V. 
 Putnam, Blanchard v. 
 
 Harlow v. 
 Putney, Buss v. 
 
 Q. 
 
 Quinlan, Fry v. 
 Quintard, Beaton v.
 
 316 
 
 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Quintard, Thomas v. 
 Webb V. 
 
 R. 
 
 Rahmer, Mallory v. 
 Railroad Co., Dubois v. 
 
 Vaughan v. 
 Railroads, Stimpson v. 
 
 Wilton V. 
 Ransom, City of New York v. 
 Rapp, Conover v. 
 Rawsou, Blake v. 
 Raymond, Grant v. 
 
 Nye V. 
 Raynolds, De Florez v. 
 Redfield, Case v. 
 
 Sullivan v. 
 Redington, Wintermute v. 
 Reed, Reed v. 
 
 Van Ostrand v. 
 Reed Torpedo Co., Roberts v. 
 Rees, Gould i'. 
 Reeves, Blanchard v. 
 
 Detmnld v. 
 Remhof. Parker v. 
 Remington, Berdan Fire Arms Mfg 
 
 Co. V. 
 Remington, Hawks v. 
 Rheem, Holliday v. 
 Rice, Carr v. 
 Rich, Dyer v. 
 Richards, Edwards v. 
 Richardson, Foss v. 
 
 Wing V. 
 Richey. Eppinger v. 
 Ricketts, Kic'li v. 
 Rifle Co., Smith v. 
 Rikenian, Finch v. 
 Ring, Calioon v. 
 Roach, Conover v. 
 
 Hathaway v. 
 Robertson, Blake v. 
 
 Eilithorp V. 
 Robinson, Ex parte. 
 Robinson, Evans v. 
 Roemer, Crouch v. 
 Rogers, French v. 
 
 Stimpson v. 
 Woodworth v. 
 
 Rollstone Machine Works, Whiting v. 
 
 Rome, Watertown, &c. R.R., Wil- 
 liams V. 
 
 Root, Goodyear D. V. Co. v. 
 Johnson i'. 
 
 Roots, Hyndman v. 
 
 Roraback, Lindsay v. 
 
 Roter, Roberts v. 
 
 Rousseau, Wilson v. 
 
 Rowley, Houghton v. 
 JNIason v. 
 
 Royer, IMorris v. 
 
 Rubber Coated Harness Tr. Co., Well- 
 ing V. 
 
 Rubber Step, &c. Co., Brown v. 
 
 Rubber Thread Co., Elastic Fab. Co. v. 
 
 Rubber Tip, &c. Co., Hove}' v. 
 
 Ruggles, Prouty v. 
 
 Rumford Ch. Works, Att'y-Gen. v. 
 
 Rumsej', Burrall v. 
 Cowing V. 
 
 Russell, Klein v. 
 
 Rust, Goodyear v. 
 
 Ryer, Roberts v. 
 
 Sabin, Chase v. 
 
 St. Louis Wire Goods Co., Adams & 
 
 Westlake I\Ifg. Co. v. 
 Sanderson. U. S. Annunc. Co. v. 
 Sandford, Wilson v. 
 Sandusky Seat Co., Comstock v. 
 Sargeant & Co., Hart, &c. Co. v. 
 Sargent. Rogers v. 
 Sargent & Co., Stanley Works v. 
 Sawyer, Bartholomew v. 
 
 Earl V. 
 Sayles, Chicago & N. W. R.R. v. 
 
 Hendrie v. 
 
 Marsh v. 
 Schemerhorn, Goodyear D. V. Co. v. 
 Schenck, Potter v. 
 
 Schenectady & Troy R.R., Winans v. 
 Schmidt, Poillon v. 
 Schotield, Densmore v. 
 Schoonmakcr, Wing v. 
 Schultz, Baldwin v. 
 Schuyler, Roberts v. 
 Schuylkill Bank, Kneaas v.
 
 LIST OF DEFENDANTS. 
 
 317 
 
 Scott, Clark v. 
 Delano v. 
 Keedy v. 
 Seagrave, Sargent v. 
 Sears, Parker v. 
 Seconibe Mfg. Co., Robertson v 
 Seibert, Garratt v. 
 Selby, Brown v. 
 Selden, Smith v. 
 Semple, Vogler v. 
 Serrell, Guyon v. 
 Hitter v. 
 Sewall, Junes v. 
 Seymour, JIarsh v. 
 
 McCormick v. 
 Shannon, Brown v. 
 Shantz, Stuart v. 
 Shawk, Latta v. 
 Shelburne, Morris v. 
 Sheldon, Steam Cutter Co. v. 
 Sheriffs, Scaife v. 
 Sherman, Doubleday v. 
 
 AVilson V. 
 
 Woodworth v. 
 Slioe Machinery Mfg. Co., Haskell r. 
 Shorey, Hartshorn v. 
 Short, Weljster Loom Co. v. 
 Sibley, Baldwin v. 
 Sibly, Dibble v. 
 Sickles, Packet Co. v. 
 Sidenberg, Woostor v. 
 Silliman, Batten v. 
 Silsbee, Melius v. 
 Silsby, Foote v. 
 Silver, Street v. 
 Silverbrandt, Decker v. 
 Silver Wire, &c. Co., West v. 
 Sinnn, F^merson v. 
 Simon, Roemer v. 
 Simons, American Cotton Tie Co. v- 
 
 Hamilton v. 
 Simpson, Hoe v. 
 
 Wheeler v. 
 
 Wilson V. 
 Singer, Vose v. 
 
 Singe. S. M. Co., Florence S. M. Co. v. 
 Sizer, JIaiiy v. 
 Skates, Matthews v. 
 Sladdin, Emmons v. 
 Slemmer's Appeal. 
 Sloat, Grover & B. S. M. Co. v. 
 
 Small, Holbrook v. 
 Smallwood, Bean v. 
 Smith, Chambers v. 
 Clark V. 
 Craig V. 
 Ferree v. 
 
 Goodyear D. V. Co. v. 
 Hardesty v. 
 Lane v. 
 Smithpeter, Wright v. 
 Spaeth, Turrell v. 
 Spafford, Wilkins v. 
 Spaulding, Perrigo v. 
 Tucker v. 
 Spear, Andrews v. 
 Speer, Crouch v. 
 
 Hall V. 
 Spence, Kidd v. 
 Sperry, Blake v. 
 Sprague, Allen v. 
 
 Blanchard v. 
 Stone V. 
 Squire, .John L., Ex parte. 
 Staats, Thompson v. 
 Stafford, Blake v. 
 
 Conklin v. 
 Goff V. 
 Stearns, Wilder v. 
 Stellman, Day v. 
 Stevens, Head v. 
 Hovey v. 
 Potter V. 
 Wicks V. 
 Stiefcl, Hoffman r. 
 Stiles, Parker v. 
 Stimpson, Hale v. 
 
 Phila. & Tr. R.R. v. 
 Woodman v. 
 Stocking, Bierce v. 
 Stockstill, Serviss v. 
 StoUy, Bloomer v. 
 Brooks V. 
 Wilson V. 
 Stone, Black v. 
 
 Woodworth v. 
 Wyeth V. 
 Stowe, Barker v. 
 Straus, Barnes v. 
 Strong, Higgiiis v. 
 Suffolk Mfg. Co., Hayden v. 
 Sullivan Co., Am. Dia. R. B. Co. v.
 
 318 
 
 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 Sulsor, Hays v. 
 Swayne, Whitely v. 
 Sweet, Scott v. 
 Swett, Hawks v. 
 
 RIarston «. 
 Swift, Myers v. 
 
 Taber, Moody v. 
 Taggert, Batten v. 
 Tak'ott, McCormick v. 
 Tapley, Snow v. 
 Tatham, Leroy v. 
 Taylor, Snow v. 
 
 Wooster v. 
 Thacher, United States v. 
 Thayer, Barclay v. 
 
 Potter V. 
 Thomas, Moore v. 
 
 Penn. Salt Co. v. 
 Thompson, England v. 
 
 Waterman v. 
 Thome, Black v. 
 Thuermer, Hill v. 
 Tiemann, Masiiry v. 
 Tileston, Sickels v. 
 Tilghman, Mitchell v. 
 Tirrell, Gilbert & B. Mfg. Co. v. 
 Toby, Goodyear v. 
 Todd, Bicknell v. 
 Tool Co., Metro. W. M. Co. v. 
 Torre}', Tracy v. 
 Towie, Cleveland v. 
 Townsend, Atlantic Giant P. Co. v. 
 Tracy, Smith v. 
 Tremaine, Hitchcock v. 
 Trimble, Railroad Co. v. 
 Tripp, Hartshorn v. 
 Tucker, Spaulding v. 
 Tucker Mfg. Co., Tucker v. 
 Tuel, Tyler v. 
 Tufts, Blaisdell v. 
 Turner, Belding v. 
 
 Ingei ;oll v. 
 
 Wilson V. 
 Turrill, Chicago & Alton R.R. v. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R.R. v. 
 
 III. Cent. R.R. v. 
 
 Mich. S. & N. Ind. R.R. v. 
 
 Pittsburgh, Ft. W. &c. R.R. v. 
 
 Twogood, Hawes v. 
 Twomey, Hiatt v. 
 Tyng, McMahon v. 
 
 u. 
 
 Underbill, Wood v. 
 
 Underwood, Howe v. 
 
 Union Car Spring Co., Nat. Spring 
 Co. V. 
 
 Union City, Holly v. 
 
 Union Co., Singer Co. v. 
 
 Union India Rubber Co., Day v. 
 
 Goodyear v. 
 
 Union Iron Works, Wood v. 
 
 Union Paper Collar Co., Merserole v. 
 
 United Power Press Co., Boomer v. 
 
 United States, Hubbell v. 
 Pitcher v. 
 
 United States Corset Co., Carstaedt v. 
 Cohn V. 
 
 United States & F. Sal. F. Co., As- 
 bestos Felting Co. v. 
 
 United States Met. Cart. Co., Union 
 Met. Cart. Co. v. 
 
 United States Disintegrating Ore Co., 
 Gold & Silver Ore, &c. Co. v. 
 
 United States Patent Button, &c. Co., 
 Piatt V. 
 
 Upton, Milligan & H. Glue Co. v. 
 
 V. 
 
 Valentine, Buerk v. 
 
 Van Antwerp, Goodyear D. V. Co. v. 
 
 Van Deusen, Union P. Collar Co. v. 
 
 Van Dresar, Gibson v. 
 
 Van Hagen, Sturges v. 
 
 Van Ingen, Livingston v. 
 
 Van Kirk, Jones v. 
 
 Van Nest, Merriam v. 
 
 Searls j;. 
 Van Wormer, Hailes v. 
 Vice, Rumford Ch. Works v. 
 
 w. 
 
 Wager, Bussey v. 
 Wait, Goodyear v.
 
 LIST OF DEFENDANTS. 
 
 319 
 
 Wales, Thayer v. 
 Walker, Chase v. 
 Jenkins v. 
 
 New York Wire Rail Co. t". 
 Wallace, Jordan v. 
 
 Waterman v. 
 Walmesley, Singer v. 
 Walworth, Ashcroft v. 
 Walworth Mfg. Co., Gilbert &B. Mfg. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Ward, Roberts v. 
 Wardwell, Sands v. 
 Warner, Blanchard Gunstock, &c. v. 
 Warren, Wing v. 
 Wa.shburne, Hawes v. 
 Washburn, Needham ». 
 Water Commissioners, Farrlngton v. 
 Waters, Pelton v. 
 Webb, Tarr v. 
 Weed, Woodworth v. 
 Weeks, Thomas v. 
 Weir Plow Co., Turnbull v. 
 Weiss, Evans v. 
 
 Welling, Rubber Coated Har. Tr. Co. v. 
 Wells, Black v. 
 
 Gill V. 
 
 Wood V. 
 Wemple, Pitts v. 
 Wentworth, Chipman v. 
 
 Fales t". 
 Werk, Tilghman v. 
 Werner, King v. 
 
 Kursheedt v. 
 Wesson, Chase v. 
 West, Doughty v. 
 West, &c. Co., Doughty v. 
 West, Newell v. 
 West Chester R.R., Stimpson v. 
 Western Union Tel. Co., Colgate v. 
 Wetherbee, Goodyear D. V. Co. v. 
 
 Putniim V. 
 Wethered, Bishchoff f. 
 Wheeler & W. Mfg. Co., Corliss v. 
 Whipple, Stanley v. 
 Whisen, Swift i'. 
 Whitcomb, Hill v. 
 White, Crittenden v. 
 Mallory v. 
 Try on v. 
 
 . Union Paper Collar Co. r. 
 Weston V. 
 
 Whitely, Commissioner of Patents v. 
 
 Hussey v. 
 Whitman, Pitts v. 
 Wliitney, Blanchard v. 
 
 Consol. F. J. Co. V. 
 Mowr}' V. 
 Potter V. 
 Whitney Arms Co., U. S. Rifle 
 
 Co. V. 
 Whittemore, Brown v. 
 Wiester, Jeffries v. 
 Wilcox, Woodbury v. 
 Wilder, Gavlor v. 
 Wiles, HaH'c. 
 
 Willard Improved Barrel Co., Green v. 
 WilUams, Grover & B. S. M. Co. v. 
 Howe V. 
 Wood V. 
 Willimantic Linen Co., Johnson v. 
 Willis, Goodyear D. V. Co. v. 
 Wilson, Pierce v. 
 Potter V. 
 Simpson v. 
 Woodworth v. 
 Wright V. 
 Winans, York & Marj'land R.R. v. 
 Wingerter, Goodyear v. 
 Winkley, Odiorne v. 
 Winslow, Troy Iron & Nail Fac- 
 tor}' V. 
 Winsor, Kendall v. 
 Winter, Wayne v. 
 Withington, Ball v. 
 Wolfinger, Ross v. 
 W^ood, Ex parte. 
 Ormsbee v. 
 Taylor v. 
 Wooden, Peterson v. 
 Woodman, Stimpson v. 
 Wood Paper Patent. 
 Woodruff, Sargent ilfg. Co. v. 
 
 Smith V. 
 Woodworth, Gibson v. 
 
 Livingston v. 
 Wooldredge, Howe i'. 
 Wooster, Elm City Co. v. 
 
 McKay v. 
 Woven Tape Skirt Co., In re. 
 Wright, Andrews v. 
 Brown v. 
 Consolidated F. J. Co. v.
 
 320 
 
 PATENT CASE INDEX. 
 
 ;W right, Dayton v. 
 Wyckog, Clan Kanald v. 
 
 Y. 
 
 Yates, Wells v. 
 Yentzer, Fuller v. 
 
 Yeomans, Merrill v. 
 Yerrington, Putnam v. 
 Young, Colt V. 
 
 Hess V. 
 
 House V. 
 
 Metropolitan W. M. Co. v. 
 Youngs, Sickels v. 
 
 University Press : John Wilson & Sou, Cambridge.
 
 
 
 
 # 
 
 
 
 
 LAW l^-^^JTY 
 
 'UNIVERSITY Ca^' '■. ■-'IFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGi^LES