BRICK V. STATEN ISLAND RY. CO.
as to apply it to all that goes before. It fits one no more than the other, and would be out of place in either. It naturally belongs just where it appears, and should be properly confined to the clauss in which it does appear. My attention has been called to a difference in punctuation between the Revised Statutes and the original act as it appeal'S in the Stat· utes at Large. The semicolon in the Revision after the words "or who violates any duty so imposed," is, in the Statutes at Large, a comma. Rev. St. 5515; 15 St. 433; Id. 146. I do not think this makes any difference, and the construction would be the same under either act. The semicolon of the Revision brings out the meaning more clearly than the comma of the original act, but the cardinal rule is to construe the statute according to its object as expressed by its language. Even where acts of parliament are not punctuated at' all, designedly so, the courts must apply this cardinal rule, and punct· uate so as to enforce the object of the act and give effect to theW-hole. Doe v. Martin, 4 Term R. 40, 66. But, by a special law, the Revision must control. Act 1878, c.. 26; 19 St. 268. This construction supported by the cases which have touched upon the subject, when· . ever you distinguish between offenses charged as coming under the different classes of offenses provided by the statute, as I have pointed out. Not one of the cases is against this ruling, if this distinction be attended to in reading the ca,se. The case of U. S. v. Nicholson, . 3 Woods, 215, does not consider the point, and in no way affects the question we have here. U. S. v. Foster, 6 Fed. Rep. 247; U. S. v·. Baldridge, 11 Fed. Rep. 552; U. S. v. Oaruthers, 15 Fed. Rep. 309; U. S. v. Wright, 16 Fed. Rep. 112; U. S. v. Bader, Id. 116; U. S: v. Watson, 17 Fed. Rep. 145; U. S. v. Fisher, 8 Fed. Rep. 414. Demurrer overruled.
NOTE. The defendants were subsequently convicted on the counts for permitting the ballot-box to be out of their sight, siml'lYl and acquitted on the other counts; the district attorney stating that there was no proof to show that the defendants were guiltY of any conspiracy or participation in the robbery of the box by permitting it to be out of their presence for that purpose. They were each fined $100, and committed till the fine and costs, amounting to about $315 each, should be paid.-[RII:p.
(OiJrcuit Oourt. 8. D. New York. No;'ember 28, 1885.)
C:0mmencing suit within six months from granting of letters patent Is prompt actIOn for redress.
A court of equity will not relegate an inventor to a court of law where he can recover money damages only in case of infringement, but will protect his, by inJunction where the circumstances and facts justify and reqUire It.
On demurrer. W. J. Townsend, for complainant. W. W. M.acFarland, for defendant. COXE, J. The complainant, who is the owner of letters patent for an "improved safety gas-tank for veRBels," files his bill in the usual form, alleging infringement by the defendant, and praying for a discovery, an injunction, and an accounting. The defendant demurs upon the sole ground that the complainant is not entitled to equitable relief. Courts of equity have frequently refused to retain jurisdiction in these cases where the patent has expired, or is about to expire, or where the complainant is guilty of laches in asserting his rights, or where it can be ascertained, in the particular case under consideration, that a complete and adequate remedy exists at law; for instance, where the sole object of the suit is to l'ecover license fees or Root v. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189; Burdell v. Comstock, 15 Fed. Rep. 395; Lansdale v. Smith, 106 U. S. 391; S. C. 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 850; McLaughlin v. Railway Co., 21 Fed. Rep. 574; Crandall v. Plano Co., 24 Fed. Rep. 738; Vaughan v. Central Pac. R. Co., 4 Sawy. 280; Smith v. Sands, 24 Fed. Rep. 470. After a careful examination, no case has been discovered where a bill has been dismissed in circumstances similar to those developed here. It appears from the bill that the patent was granted to complainant August 28, 1883; that the action was commenced within six months thereafter, which, in a pat.ent cause, is unusual promptness; that the exclusive right secured by the patent has been, and still is, of great value to complainant; that the defendant has made and used four of the patented tanks, and is still using them; that, though requested so to do, he has refused to desist from making and using the patented improvements, and has declined to account for the profits received by reason of t,he infringement. There is nothing in the bill to indicate that the complainant has granted, or intends to grant, licenses, or that he did not commence his suit the very day he learned of the infringement. There is therefore nothing of which to predicate laches, and, unless extrinsic facts and circumstances are imported into the case, the argument that an action at law will afford a suffi. cient remedy can hardly be maintained. Upon the pleadings now before the court it cannot be said that a money judgment for damages alone will indemnify the complainant, or that ultimately an injunction should not issue for his protection. If the contention of the defendant should become established law, inventors,in all similar cases, will receive a staggering blow. The "exclusive right" granted by the patent will exclude no one. The door will be thrown wide open to wrong-doers. The courts will be powerto protect, and the (\nly remedy remaining to the patentee, if fottunate enough to discover the injury done him, will be a 8uit at
GRAHAM V. TETER.
law for actual damages, which, in most cases, is no' remedy at aU: Patents would soon cease to be valuable if there were no power to prevent trespassers from using the patented invention. If the court shall finally determine that the complainant has a valid patent, and that the defendant infringes, I can see no reason why the complainant should not have the ordinary relief. Demurrer overruled; defendant to answer within 20 days.
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. Pennsylvania. October 6, 1885.)
PATENTS-BILL IN EQUITY-NECESSARY PARTIES.
The commissioner of patents is not a necessary party to a bill in equity filed under section 4915, Rev. St., by an applicant for a patent, where there 18 an opposing party to the bill; but where a patentee has transferre 1 his inter· . est in an invention, he is 8 necessary party defendant.
Walter J. Budd, for complainant. Oharles How8on and Hubert Howson, for defendant. BRADLEY, Justice. The bill in this case, filed under section 4915 of the Revised Statutes, sets out, inter alia:
Edward H. Graham, of the city of Philadelphia, in the state of Pennsylvania, and a citizen of said state, being the original, first, and true inventor of the hereinafter described improved process for cleaning and drying grain, and having made application for letters patent therefor, which application has been rejected by the commissioner of patents, and priority of invention of the subject-matter thereof adjudged in favor of William L. Teter, also of the city of Philadelphia and state of Pennsylvania, and a citizen of said state, after duly-contested proceedings had in interference between the application of your orator and the first claim of the reissued letters patent No. 10,275, of the said William L. Teter, granted January 23, 1883, for process of and apparatus for cleaning grain, the original letters patent No. 262,505 bearing date of A.ugust l:l, 1l:l82, brings this his bill, in accordance with the statute in such case made and provided, for the purpose of obtaining 3i decree from your honorable court that he is the first, true, and original inventor of the said improved process, and as such entitled to receive a patent therefor, and he joins herein as defendant the said William L. Teter, he being, so far as your orator is informed and believes, the only party having any interest adverse to your orator in the matter of his said application.
(2) This respondent * * * says that he is not the only party haVing an interest adverse to said complainant in the matter of his said appfication for patent in said bill of complaint mentioned, but that all the right, title, and interest of this respondent in and to the invention for which reissued letters patent No. 10,275 were granted and issued to this respondent, and which said complainant claims in his said application for letters patent, was, long before the bringing of said complainant's said bill of complaint, assigned by
The answer sets out, inter alia.: