EAGLEH'\'Nm"G !'OO. t1. MOLINE' P,LOW 00.
Partiesin'tliat;connectibidnch1de allwbo are dhectly interested in the subject-maHer; Rnd who had a right to make defense, proceedings,' examine' 'Yitpesses, and JrWn judgment. ,Andthis same is and followed in,numerous caSes, "mongwhich are Beloitv. Morgan, 7 Wall. 619; Millerv. Liggett, etc., Co., 7 Fed. Rep. 91; Claflin v. Fletcher, ld. 851; American BeU Tel. Co. v,' National 27 Fed. Rep. 666; 37 Fed. Bep.352; Len v. Deakin, 11 23, 13 Fed. Rep. 514; Wit.:, 8on'8 Ex'rv. Deen, 121 U. S. 525, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1004. '" The proor'i'n this case shows beyond doubt that the defendantin ,this case, with the consent of the defendants in the Iowa case, made itself the dominus litU8 in that case; it controlled the defense; appeared by its own attorneys; it was the manufacturer of the plows in which the alleged infringement was found; and may, I think, with entire propriety, be held to 'be botlnd,not only upon all the questions which were raised and terminedin the former case, but upon all which might have been ,raised and determined in that case. The Hague patent itself was considered by the Iowa court, and not held to be an antiqipation or protection as against the complainant's patent. The defendant, may. I think, be con· sidered as bound, not only by all the evidence which was considered in the Iowa but all which it could have appropriately put into the recor<i in that case, including the testimony, which it is claimed would carry the Hague invention back of the Wright invention. I am therefore of opinion that all the defenses which are urged here and are cut off by the decree in the Iowa case. A have decree wiIl therefore be entered, finding that the defendant infringed as charged, and for an injunction and accounting.
t1. MOLINE PLOW
(Oircuit Court. N. D. llZino1.8; July 13, 1891.)
In Eqnity. Bill by the Eagle ManufacturingCompany against the MoUne Plow Company to restrain the infringement of a patent. Nathaniel French and W. T. Underwood, for complainant. Bond, 4dams &- Jones. for defendant. District Judge. The bill in this case charges the defendant with the infringement of the same. patent involved in the preceding case, against the David Bradley Manufacturing Company, (50 Fed. Rep. 193,) and the defeuse interposed is the same as in that case. The bill in this case also charges that in December. 1887, complainant brought suit in the southern district of Iowa, by bill in chancery, against the Moline, Milburn & Stoddard Company. f0l' an alleged infringement of the same lettera patent; that the defendant in tMt cas,e was a branch houaeof ,the Moline Plow Company, the defendant in this case, and was engaged in selling the identical cultivators manufactured by the defendant herein, and which in this case complainant charges ill-
fringed patel!-t; that sucb proceedings were badin thatcaae .. that a decree was entere4, finding tpe defendant in that case guilty oftlIe illfringement charged,.andan injunction against sucb fUrUlel:' infririgement duly entered, (35 Fed. Rep. 299;) tMt the defendant in this case took the control and charge of thedefense in that case, and by its own attorneys, and at its own expense; conducted such defense, and that, therefore,·this defendant Is estopped by the .decree in that case. The proofsfullystJ.stain this allegation) in the bill, and bring the case wholly within the rUle laid down in the prior case of this complainant against the David Bradley ManUfaCturing Company. A decree will therefore be entered, finding that tJ;le'detendant infringed, and for an injunction ,and accounting. " " '
,Co. et ale
Ry. Co, tit al. SAm: tI. BOUTON FOUNDRY SAME tI. TOBIN et al. SAllE fl. EXCEiLSIOR IRON WORKS SAllE fl. BlJ:E;.· SAME V. HA,FfNER et ale
fl. CHICAGO CITY
(Oircuit' uO'tli7't. N. D.llUnoiB. MaY' 2, 18112.)
, " ,',l'hll thIrd olaim of No. issned February 17,1880, W HazeltoD 'and'KennedY', for a new and Unproved sectional boller, consisting bf the oombinathlp 01 'horizontal hot-water pipes and steam pIpes set inside,of a 11re ohamber, with vertical drums and mU(1 drulI\ set outside 'of the fire Is not i.fringed bY,a device of' a'''pol"Oupine'' boiler having a oentral standpipe in whioh nup:ierQ\l8,hollow tubes' are inserted as to radiatehoriz(}ntally, and having three tl,lbes ,riveted to and exten«ling the wc»'lt'llurrounding tbe fire chamber, since the said olaim covers mel"elY',the partie.. , , Ulj,U',QP!ll;bination desollibe<ltherein. I. SAME-BOILER ',', , " Letters patent No. 849,72&;'issUed September 28, 1886, to Edwal'd B. T. Kennedy for an improvement in boiler defleotors, consisting in the combination with a porcupine boiler and its jaoket of horizontal flame defleotol"s of segmental form, placed within the oombustion ohamber in position for proteoting the exposed ends of the tubes and defleoting the heated produots of combustion towards the boiler oylinder, are void for want of patentable invention and noveltY'.
In Equity. Bills by Edward S. T. Kennedy to restrain the alleged infringement of certain patents. ', " ' Bannirr,g, Banning lc,ea'!JBfm,for complainant. Bond, AdarruJ &: Pickard"for defendants.
GRESHAlI, Circuit Judge. These suits for infringement of patents, No. 224,685, issued February 17, 1880, No. 247,910, issued October 4, 1881, and No. 34 9', September 28, 1886, wete heard together. The complainant purchased a half interest in the two first inventions, the patents isslled to him and the inventOr jointly, and the latter assigned his interest, in both patents to the complainant. The third patent issued to the complainant. All the; defendants are charged with, infringing the third claimof No. 224,685; and the Chicago City Railway Company, Company, and Joseph Bee with infringing the 1st, 2d,5th, and 6thclaiIp.s of No. It is anI of