ADAMS V. BRIDGEWATER IRON CO.
plaintiffs' counsel on this motion for a new trial, I still. The case of Stockwell v. U. S. 13 Wallace, 548,' draws a <listindion between remedial, or compensatorystatntes, and penal statutes. That the statute here involved is penal, is not open to doubt. If' the suit might be regarded as against the several members of the firm individually, and a recovery be sustained against Charles Sharpless alone, for publishin?, a question might possibly ariRe whether the case should have gone.to the jury, as upon a suit against him only, Nosnch clrtim having been tnade, however, at the trial, this aspect of the case was not considered. As- .the record stands, I incline to believe the claim, if made, must have been denied. The rule, therefore, is discharged. McKENNAN C. J. concurred.
and others v.
CO. and others.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Ma88achusetts. February 26, 1881.)
L EQUITY PRACTIC.-ExcEPTION TO ANSWER.
,An answer is not subject to exception because it contains a SUbstantive defence not responsive to a bill in equity.
"There is rio regular authorized mode of pleading, like a demurrer, to test the lllgal validity of part of anans'Wer I but possibly, on motion, s(\me order might be taken to of rart of a in the first instanc'e, if it should be ,found that gl:eat delay and expense might thereby be avoided. "-[ED.
..... In Equity. Exceptions to Answer. Qeo. W. Estabrook, for 'complainants. D. Hall Rice, for defendants. LOWELL, C. J. The defendant corpol"ation,byits a.nswer to the bill, makes all the defences usual in a patent suit, and adds that it has received from the plaintiff Adams a release, under seal, of all actions for infringement, if it has committed any. A copy of the release is set out, and the defenct· I
ants 'pray to have the same benefit of these facts as if they had been pleaded in bar. The plaintiffs except to the answer on the ground that this release, if given precisely as it is averred to have been given, is insufficient in law to bar the plaintiffs' suit. A substantive defence, not responsive to the plaintiffs' inquiry in his bill, is not the subject of exception. That form. of objection applies only to an insufficient discovery, or to scandal and impertinence. The plaintiffs intended by their exceptions to procure a hearing upon the validity of this defence as if it were a plea and they had set it down. But it is not a plea. It is part of the answer, and is merely one of several defences. By the thirty-ninth rule in equity a defendant may make a plea part of his answer, and, if he does so, he shall not be compellable to answer more, or otherwise, than if he had filed a. regular plea. The defendants have taken no advantage of this rule; they have answered the whole bill fully; and their request to have the same advantage as if they had pleaded the release, has no meaning. As it stands, it is, as I have said, one Bubstantive defence not used by way of plea at all, but by way of alternative answer. It stands precisely like the defence of the statute of limitations, which they also rely on in another part of their answer, and which they might have used by way of plea or demurrer. Whether the court may not have power to hear Buch a defence before requiring the whole case to be gone into, is not now the question. There is no regular authorized mode of pleading, like a demurrer, to test the legal validity of part of an answer; but possibly, on motion, some order might be taken to dispose of part of a eafo8 in the first instance, if it should be found that great d.elay and expense might thereby be avoided. I do not decide point. Exceptions overruled.
STUW SEWING 1iI40mNlil gO. aI. EAMESt
STRAW SEWING MACIDNE
(Circuit Oourt, 8. D. New York.
L RrJ:-IssuE No. 7,985. Re-issue No. 7,985, for an II improvement In sewing machines." Is not fJoid as to the first three claims for want of novelty.
There is no departure in such re-issue from the original, which In any manner affects the validity of the third claim of the re-issue.
The first three claims of such re-issue held to be infringca, although there were certain formal structural differences in the infringing machine.-[ED.
S. J. Gordon, for plaintift!. Strawbridge eX Taylor, for defendant.
BLATCHFORD, C. J. This suit is brought on re-issued letters patent granted to the plaintiff, December 11, 1877, (No. 7,985,) for an "improvement in sewing machines, It the original patent, 38,807, having been granted to Charles F. Bosworth, June 9, 1863, and re-issued to the plaintiff, June 1, 1875. The specification of No. 7,985 reads as follows, including what is inside and what is outside of brackets, and omitting what is in italics: "Be it known that I, C. F. Bosworth, of the [town of Milford] city oj New Haven, in the state of Connecticut, have invented certain new and ·nseful improvements [in] to be used in combination with sewing machines, whereby such machines are better adapted to the sewing of braid or plaiting, or other narrow strips of material, the improvements being chiefly applicable to stitching together braids of straw braid, chip, palm-leaf, etc., in the manufac·ture of hats, caps, and bonnets. These improvement's are fully, clearly, and exactly hereinafter described, in connection with the drawings which make part of the description. In the drawings, figure 1 is a front elevation of a. sewing machine with my improvem.ents attached. Fig. 2 is a. view in perspective of the improvements and certain parts of the sewing machine. Figs. 8, 4, 5, and 6 are sketches exhibiting on a