There must he a. decree declaring the Baumann patent invalid, as to its first claim, in the whole of the United States, as respects the defendant and all persons who shall derive title under it, to or in said patent subsequently to the entry of such decree, with oosts.
& FOREIGN SALAlIfANDE'R ASBESTOS FELTING CO.·
8. D. New York.
September 1, 1880.)
George E.· Betton, for plaintiff. Johnathan Marshall, for defendant. BLATCHFORD, C. J. This suit is brought for the infringe. ment of patent No. 114,711, granted to the plaintiff on the invention of John Riley, May 9, 1871. The bill sets up that the plaintiff brought a suit at law for the infringement of that patent in the Massachusetts district against the Merri· mack Manufacturing Company; that the material used by the defendant in that suit was supplied and put on by the agents of the d,efendant in this suit, and is the same as that made and used by the defendant in this suit; that the defendant in this suit defended that suit, its president being personally present at the trial and giving directions with regard to the same; that the answer in that suit set up as a defence a. patent granted to one Baumann, No. 100,354, March 1, 1870; that the judgment of the court was in favor of the plaintiff, alid that the defendant is bound by said decision. The answer in this suit does not deny that the defendant in this suit defended the Massachusets suit, but avers that the Baumann patent was not introduced in evidence in the Massachusets suit. The plaintiff put in evidence in the suit the record of the Massachusetts suit, under an objection of the defendant that it was incompetent. It appears by the
«<See ante, 813.
ETC., FELTING CO. V. ASBESTOS FBLTING 00.
proof and in this suit that the defendant supplied the covering for boilers and pipes used by the defendant in the Massachusets suit; that the president of the defendant employed the counsel who defended that suit, and that the defendant paid for the services of said counsel. The record in the Massachusets suit shows that that suit was brought on said patent No. 114,711, with other patents; that the answer in that suit seta forth that the things claimed in the Riley patent were before Riley invented those described in the patent No. 100,354, granted to Baumann March 1,1880, and known to and used by said Baumann; and that the finding of the court was that the defendant had infringed the first and second claims of the patent No. 114,711. On the foregoing facts it must be held that the record in the Massachusets suit is proper evidence in this suit, and that the judgment in that suit concludes the defendant as to the Baumann patent, and as to the alleged prior knowledge and use by Baumann. For the same reasons that judgment concluded the defend. ant as to the patent No. 76,773, granted April 14, 1868, to Henry W. Johns, and as to any alleged prior knowledge and use by Johns, the Riley patent is not invalidated by the Hardy & Lay patent, No. 94,739, or the Selden & Kid patent, No. 83,414, or the French patent, No. 94,882, or any of the other patents or matters put in evidence by the defendant. The proof is satisfactory that the defendant has infringed the first and second claims of the plaintiff's patent, and there must be a decree for the plaintiff for a perpetual injunction, and an account of profits and damages, with costs. VA, no. 9- 59
FEDERAL BE PORTER.
MOCARTY and another v. STEAM-PROPELLER CrTY BEDFORD.
'District Oourt, 8. D. Ne1JJ York. November 30, 1880.)
L GARNISHMENT-WAGES-SEAMEN.-The wages earned by a seaman, in the coastwise trade of the United States, are not subject to garnishment at the instance of the creditor of the seaman in an action at law brought in a state court. 2. BAME-SA.ME-SAME-JURISDICTIoN.-The judgment of a state court, in such case, directing the garnishee to pay such wages to a creditor t is void for want of jurisdiction.
S. BAME-PLEA IN BAR.-A garnishee cannot plead sllchjudgment in bar, where it does not appear that execution has been awarded against him, or that he has been called on or compelled to pay the same.
In Admiralty. Alexander et Ash, for libellants. Evarts, Southmayd et Choate, for claimants. D. J. This is a proceeding in rem, instituted by Daniel McCarty and Owen Hare, to enforce against the steam· propeller City of New Bedford a lien for their wages, earned in the navigation of that vessel in the coastwise trade of the United States, to·wit, in coastwise trade between the city of Fall River, in the state of Massachusetts, and the city of New York, by way of Narraganset bay, the Atlantio ocean, Long Island sound, the East river, and the waters of New York harbor. The libel was filed in the southern district of New York on the twentieth day of February, 1880. The Old Colony Steamboat Company intervened as claimants of the vessel, asserting that at the time of the filing of the libel the vessel was owned by them; and un March the 17th filed an answer to the libel, setting up in bar of the action that, on the twenty-fourth day of January, 1880, and the seventh day of February, 1880, the moneys in their hands then due the libellant Hare, and which hn,d been earned by him in the navigation of the said steampropeller, were in the city of Fall River attached by a oonstable of said city, by virtue of a writ issued out of the second