featlll'e$. wa.sliketaking .out the hE'.art and lungs of a human being. The ma<lhiQ£I was dead. It became an inert maSS of iron, utterly use· less for drawing off· the gas. from the casing of 'an oil-well. Vitality couldl:larestored by replacing theparts thus removed, but in no other Ullimilar, facts exist in the case at bar, they are not fully disclosed by th.e recoI'd. On the contrary, as one p0int of dissimilarity, it ap· pears that other spoke-thl'oating machines ex.isted, and were on the mar· ket prioI' to the patent, and up to the time of the accounting. The complainants' combinatiou is undoubtedly an improvement upon the old machines; it does the desired work faster and better; bat those who use it should only be required to pay for those improvements which ac. complishthelle The old machine could hardly have cost more than the patented macbJne, and there must have hoona handsome profit derived from its sale. If from the profit realized by defendant the profit 011 the old machine were deducted, the result would furnish the value ofthe invention. Mawv. Braum, 17 Fed. 738. Surely the old machine cannot, without additional proof, be wholly ignored. The exceptions should be sustained; but as it seems quite likely that the compll,Lin!J,nts can make the necessary proof,' the matter should be referred, bll-qkto the master to. restate the.account,confining the recovery to the profifsprov.ed to be attributable to the improvements covered by the claims. the complainants produce satisfactory proof that the entire market value of .the machine is due to the patented features., Theex.penses of the new reference should be borne by the complain. ants.
;REA1! t1. BERLIN &JoNES ENVELOPE
Oourt, 8. D. NfAD York.
March 19, 1887.)
PA1ENTS INVENTIONS-SVIT FOR INFRINGEMENT-f'LEADING-AlmNDMENTREISSUE.'
In a suit in equity to restrain infringement of an original patent. and for account of profits and damages for past infringement, the defendant an" swered that the patent sued" on had been surrendered and reissued. Held, within the power of a court of equity to allow an amendment of the bill to cover the reissue.
Arthur v. Brieaen, for plaintiff. J08rph O. Olayton, for defendant.
WHEELER, J. An against further infringement, and an ttccount of profits and damages for past infringement of the plaintiff's l)atent, was decreed on final hearing; and the jurisdiction of this court,
ill of the cause was much in maJ4ng that decree. 19 FEYl.Rep.3 L1; Reayv. !k,y'M1" Jd. 308. On,application of the defendant, in consideration 'of special circumstances needless to be stated, a. reargument of the question of jurisdiction in equity was granted, and accounting, meanwbile, entered. The rearg,u;mcllt ba.s bee.p. ;had. The biU was pn an original patent; tbe defendant answered that it bad been surrendered and reissued; the patent expired; and after that tbe bill was amended to cover the reissue. This amendment appears to have been clearly within the power of the court. The ground for reliefwas the exclusive right of the owner of the patent to practice the invention. This was the same under each patent. The statement of tbe patent was merely a statement of the title to the exclusive right. The change of the statement from that oBbe original to the reissue was merely circumstantial. The case stated before the amendment, was one for equitable. cognizance. The amendment aeco,mplished a more correct stateDlent of the same case, within Hardinv. BfY!jd, 113;O.S. 756, 5 Sup. Ct.. Rep; 771, (now'llluch relied upon by, defendant,) The 'lhmwloPatent, 23 Wall. 518. The case made was not only one ,in which equitable relief might be granted, but Ol1.e in which it granted by issuing an injunction against the further use of machiI1.es:r;nade during the term of the patent,,' in violation of the relief is pot now under conrights secured by it. The propriety of sideration, qut ·only the jurisaiction in equity to' decide upon it, ,and it. Such jurisdiction appears to be well s,ustained by deny or (]lark 119 U. $.322,7 $up. Ct. Rep. 211· . Stay vacated.
'CLARKE arid others v. THE CtmBERLAND.
(Di$flrict Oourt, S. D. Florida.
MARITIME LIENs""':'REPAms AND SUPPLIES-HOME PORT-CHARTERER, MASTER -NOTICE OF OHARTER. '
charterer and owner pro hac 'Dice, also bills contracted by a master in' com. mand, not charterer, at a port of the same state as the reSIdence of the charterer, where it was not shown that the material-man had notice of the charter, , gave a lien; but where shown that the material-man had informed cha,rteraJl.1l its is presumed ,furnishee' subsequent , of supplws upon the credIt of the owner pro hac '1nce. '
(2) That in a port of another state, bills contracted by master, although