diction of an action brought here in the first instance, and therefore could not take such jurisdiction by a removal. He relies upon the decision in Yuba Co. v. Mining Co., 32 Feq.Rep.)83. .That case was before this court in the Southern district, in BdUrke v;-Amison, ld. 710, and not followed. The motion in the latter case was for an order setting aside the service of process, and the opinion discusses the act of 1887 so far only as was necessary to a decision Of that Subsequently I upon the settlement of the order, the defendant asked for a dismissal, contending that the court had no jurisdiction. This was denied (orally) on the expressed ground that jurisdiction would be entertained if the defendant were served in district of New York, where the resided.' The whole sUBject has·been .elaborately considered in the decisions already rendered in this and otber circuits, which have been cited by the defendant on this argument. It seems unnecessary to add anything to what has been already written,both-because the subject has been fully discussed, and because it now appears that the act which the federal courts have been interpreting for the past 12 months. is not the act which passed both houses of congress, and received the president's signature. The act printed on the statute-book conforms to the enrollment, but the enrolled act, when compared with the original papers on file in the secretary's office, contains 25 mistakes in spelling, in punctuation, in chang- : ingand omitting words, and in the structure of the bill,-that is, by changing paragraphs. Congo Rec·.March 14, 1888, pp. 2102,2103.
BROOKLYN WATCH-CASE Co· .". LEACH!
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. New York. April 16, 1888.)
FJmBBAL OoUBTB,-JtJRISDIOTION-PATENTS FOB INVENTIONS-INJUNCTION.
On applfcMion for an injunction to prevent defendant from assigning a patent for a certain improvement in machinery, held, that if complainant'scaaa were founded solely upon some contract or arrangement with defendant, it did not arise under the patent laws, an,d this court would have no jurisdiction. On the other hand, if his claim were based on Rev. St. U. S. § 4899, providing that the purchaser or licensee of a patentable device before the inventor applies for· a patent, shall not be liable for infringement, then the court, while having jurIsdiction, would refuse the application. because of no right being, shOwn to the relief for. .
In Equity. On application for preliminary injunction. The bill of complaint alleged that defendant, an employe of complainants, 'had invented certain improvements in complainant's machinery, in adopting which coroplainanthad been put to great expense; that defendant now intended to take.out patents' on such inventions, and enjoin com,.· plainant's use,of them, and exact royalties, which,under hiscontra,ct of. employment.withcomplainant, defendant was not entitled to exact; that
by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
HUDSON RIVER 'VEST SHuRE RY. CO.
': . . ,,'-" 11' '.-
defenqant now, 8,ssign to so!'XJ.Etperson· 'unknown; apd thereupon tM bill aij\red' for a release and discharge of compiainant from· the charge of aBeg:ed· infringement,' and an injunction to .prevent. defendant of his. improvemElilts, andfrqmeJ;lfprc;:mg agamst complamant any or all of hiS letters patent now or hereafter to be taken out. This wa.s a preliminary application for an injunction to a transfer ofacertain specified patent. G. G. Frelinghuysm, for coillplainant. M0rri8 &; PearsaU, for defendant.
LkCOYBE, J. I find no papers submitted except the bill of complaint and briefs. From them it is not clear upon what application the queE!tions now raised are before the court. The only point argued in the briefs is as to the jurisdiction of this court. That Qlay more properly he determined upon a demurrer than by motion to dismiss, because the question as to whether there is equity in the bill may then be disposed of; a question which does not come up on a naked application to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. If the complainant's case is founded solely upon some contract or arrangement with the defendant, then it does not arise undel' the patent laws, and this court. has no jurisdiction. If, however, bis sole Claim is based upon the provisions of secoon 4899 of the Revised Statutes, then this C0nrt may have jurisdiction to entertain it, but may refuse the relief asked for, because complainant does not show any right, either to require defendant to execute a release, or to enjoin him from disposing of any patent he may receive without firet notifying the purchasers of complainant's rights. The section above cited from the Revised Statutes affords the complainant absolute protection, and· equity will not interpose to secure him additional securities, in the absence of any avel'l1lents showing that he is harassed by threats of litigation or .other interference with his rights.
BEEKMAN fl. HUDSON RIVER WEST SHORE
Ry. Co. et 41.
(Circuit (Jourt, 8. D. N6fJJ York.
April 27, 1888.)
COURTS - FEDERAL DISTRICTS PQINT RESERVATION.
SOUTHER1'l' DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -
The United States reservation at West Point, in the state of New York. is within the "Southern district of New York," and the circuit court of that district has jurisdiction of a bill to foreclose a mortgage executed by a railroad company upon its right of way through that reservation granted it by congress, and its improvements thereon. The pendency in the state courts of a suit by the trustees of a railroad mortgage to foreclose is llot a bar to a similar auit in the federal court by a bondholder secured thereby. .
SAME-CONFLICT OF STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION.