DOBSON V·. GRAHAM.
The answer, so far as it is responsive to the bill, is evidence for the defendant making it; but if defendant, by his answer, admits afact alleged in the bill, tpen sets up another matter in avoidance therpof, this matter in avoidance is not responsive to the bill, and his answer is not evidence of it. Clarke Y. White, 12 Pet. 190; Tilghman v. Tilghman, Baldw.194; Randall v. Phupips, 3 ,Mason, 383; McCQy v. Rhodes, 11 How. 140; Hart v. Ten Eyck, 2· Johns. Ch. 87. In this connection matter in avoidaQce is something subsequent to and distinct from or dehors the fact admitted ; but, if the admission and avoidance constitute one single fact or transaction, the answer is evi.;lence of both.. Hart, v. Eyck, supra, 88, and note. . 'J,'he plp,a of non est factum the execution of the deed by the defendant, puts the fact of execution in. issue, and it you may prove, because comprehended in it, that the defendant was imposed put her name to paper under an erroneous impresiliol) upon., as to its. character or contents. Van Valkenburghv.Rouk, 12 Johns. 338; 2 Green}, Ev. § 246; PI. '519; 2 Phil. Ev. 148. And so here the answer' is C:OIApetent, and, until contradicted, sufficient evidence that the defendant put her to this instrument ,under an entirely erroneous impression of its contents, which impression was designedly produced .by the false representations .of the plaintiff's agent. premises is that the defendant Julia The only cpnclusion from did not execute the mortgage, so far as her portion of the concerned, and, as to that, the bill must be dismissed.
in the answer to the contrary, which was done, and a decree gh'en enforcing the.lien of the mortgage upon the property of the defendant Julia McCallister. '
to provetbedue execution of the mortgage, notWithstanding the averment
Afterwards tbe plaintiff bad leave to reinstate the case, and take testimony
DOBSON fl. GRAHAM.'
(Oircuft Oour.t, E. D.
Jnne 27, 1889.)
Drsoom'r-SllORIlT8 OF MANUFACTURE.
Workmen pledged to secrecy, and employed in a factory in which the lmelDllI8la conducted in private, to secure the secrecy of the machinery and methods of manufacture, will not be compelled, in a suit against their employer, to answer interrogatories, and describe the peculiarities of his machinery, where no evidence has been introduced to show that the secrets of the defendant were used to conceal an invasion of complainant's rights.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-PRESUMPTION OF INFRINGllMllNT.
No presumption of infringement of complainant's patent by defendant arises from the fact that the workmen who constructed complainant's machinery were employed to erect defendant's machinery. will not be granted an inspection of machinery of defendant kept. In secret, and claimed to embody important secrets, when complainant produces no evidence tending to show that it infringes his patents. by Mark Wilks Collet, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
SAME-INSPEOTION OF DEFENDANT'S MAOHINERY.
'i' In : .... ' . '.. · . . ,,' ' ,··,'Billtoenjoininfringement of patent by.)'obn 'l!>ol)soti' Ricbard Gtabam,' Plaintiff called defendant's workmell. to !i3bowinfringement, and askedtbem to state wbEirein tbedefendant's trili.ehiuil differed from complainant's; This they refuselHo do under advice of.counsel. Plaintiff movciHor an inspection of defendant's machinery, and to compel the witnesses to answer interrogatories. ,Motions denied. Heetifr 'T.Fenron, for complainant. Taylor, for respondent·
Bu:rLE1h District Judge. These,motions must pe dismissed for tbe reaAs then said, the plaintifffiled his illfringemenrofhis rights without having any positive upon the subject. He seems to have'relied upon the chance of to 811pp6rt the charge frori:tthe defendant and his workmen. '., Suchs is not entitled to the favor of a court. of ':The business isconducteil' in private, fur the purpose of secUring to himself (as he asserts) the use'of his pectMiar machinery metoods of manufacture. These secretS' of his business, if they ct>v'er:riothing unlawful, lire his propettyand as' well entitled to protection, as the rights secured by ,the plaintiff's ptLtent. His workmen are bound by-express contract not to diV1ulgef them. In theal>llence of such equitywbuld iinply an obligation equal force. If it were showri 'that these secrets are used asa clollk to cover an invasion of the plaintiff:8 ev:idence tending it, and helienhat sound, .tl;1e motions would be sustained. But there is, such evidence before us. It appears that the defendant employsdertainworkmen who were formQrly enJployed by' theplaintiffj that these workmen are familiar with the patented machinery, and that they aided in constructing the defendant's. This is substantially all. These workmen have been permitted to answer questions directed towards a comparison of the defendant's machinery with the plaintiff's except wbere the ans"er, ;would tenllJp describe wherein the former differed from the latter, and'thus to describe the peculiarities of the deThe.courtcannotproperly compebthem to p;o furfendant's to mather, nor, in this state of facts, compel phi,ne,y ,tQ iQ$per;;tion.· .,.. ... . .
sOhS state'dat an earlier periOd in tbecase.
KEVER 11. CADWALADER.
(01lrcuU Oourt, E. D. PennB1/wania. June 18, 1891.)
CUSTOMS DUTIES-HAT TRIMMINGS.
The clause of the tariff act of 1883, providing for "braids, plaits, flats, laces, trimmings. tissues, willow sheets and squares, used for making or ornamenting hats, bonnets, :and hoods, composed of straw, ohip, grass, palm-leaf; willow, hair, whalebone, or any other sublltance or material not specially enumE1rated or provided for, .. includell goods known, respectively, as "chinas" and "marceUI\es," and principally used for'Uning hats, if suoh goods are trimmings, and are chiefly used for making or ornamenting hats, bonnets,and hoods. The term "trimmings" should not, under the evidence. be given any technical or ,particular commercial meaning, but should receive Its poplllar signification Bnd common ·import, as used and applied in ordinary life. The mere fact that chinas aud marcelines are bought and sold by tbose particular names, and are called "linil!gs." does not necessarily exclude them from the class of trimmings if they are in fact trimmings ohiefly used. either for making or ornamenting hats, bonnets, and hoods. ' The fact that the articles are Imported by the piece, and must be cut up before they are aotually applied to use in making or ornamenting does not exclude them from the class of trimmings, If they are distinctlyadapteQ and chiefly used for trimming hats, bonnets, and hoods, and are not specially enumerated or provided for in the act. ' Hat trimmings are dutiable under the hat-trimming clause of the act of 1883, and not under the silk act of February S, 1875, notwithstanding that silk Is their component material of chief value, and that they contain less than 25 per cent. in value of Qotton.
SAME-MEANING 011' WORDS.
SAME-FORM IN WHICH ARTIOLB IS IMPORTED.
SAME-SII& ACT 011' 1875.
At Law. Assumpmt to recover an excess of duties alleged to have been illegally exacted by the collector on goods imported by the plaintiffs in 1884. The facts are sufficientJy set forth in the-charge. The verdict " was, for tht' plaintiffs., }tank P. Prichard and Hetl.ry E. 7hmain, (Cyru8 E. Wood8, Harry T. Kingston, ..4:ugUBt'U8 R. Stanwood, and Charles Ouric, with them,) for plaintiffs. W. W.; Carr, Asst. U. S.Atty., John R. Read, U. S. Atty., W. P. Hepburn, Sol. of Treasury, and William H. Taft, Sol. Gen., for defendant. ' ACHESON, Circuit Judge,(charging jury.) This is an action by Meyer &: Dickinson, importers, against the collector of the port of phia, (the United States being the real defertdant,) to recover, an alleged excess of duties paid under protest on goods entered at the custom-house on February 18, March 26, and April 10, 1884. The goods which were the subject of the duty were chinas and marcelines, the latter being made wholly ohilk, and the former of silk and cotton, silk being the component material of chief valu<:l. 'The custom-house officers assessed upon the goods a duty of 50 per centum ad 'Calorem under the last clause of Schedule L of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, (22 St. 510,) which . ' reads: .,'
-Beported;byKark Wilks Collet,llllQ.., of the Phlladelphia be.