tion of the court to require the defendants to meet in a single answer, and by connected proofs, the allegations made with respect to the five patents which the complainants have here set up. The second and third grounds of demurrer neednot be considered. It is not necessary to pass upon them in the present case, and it maJ' be that they will not be applicable to any case which may be presented hereafter. The cause of demurrer first assigned is as f()llows:
"First. That it appears from the face of the bill of complaint that the said bill of complaint is altogether multifarious, in that suit is thereby brouglit . against said defendants for five separate and distinct matters and causes,to wit, for an infringement of letters patent No. 233,746, granted to Oscar Gassett, for improvements in circuits and apparatus for electric railway signaling; for an infringement of letters patent No. 246,492, granted to Oscar -GasSett, August 30, 1881, for improvements in electric railway signaling apparatus; for an infringement of letters patent No. 270,867, granted to George Westinghouse, Jr., for an improvement in .electric circuits for railway signaling; for an infringement of letters patent No. 227,102, to Oscar Gassett and Israel Fisher, for an improvement in rail connectors for electric track circuits; and for an infringement of letters patent No. 273,377, granted to Charles J. Means, for· an improvement in electric railway signals. That these severa I matters and things cannot be properly joined in one suit, and that these defendants, being by this bill of complaint required to litigate five distinct and unconnected controversies in this one suit, are thereby put to great and serious inconvenience and disadvantage, contrary to the spirit and purpose of equity. and cannot properly make answer thereto, as in right and justice they are entitled. That it nowhere In said bill of complaint appears, nor is it alleged, that the improvements recited in said patents are all conjointly used or infringed by these defendants, or are all COnjointly used or infringed by ilie defendantsmor upon one and the same machine, deVice, article, or apparatus, or are all capable of conjoint use in or upon one and the same machine, deVice, article, or apparatus, but, on the contrary, it appears on the face of the said bill of complaint, and of the aforesaid patents forming part thereof (profert of each and all of which having been made therein), that the said improvements described and claimed in said several letters patent are of such a diverse nature and character that they are incapable of conjoint use, and cannot be used conjointly, or conjointly in one and the. same machine, device, article, or apparatus."
For the calIse thus assigned, the demurrer is sustained, and the bill adjudged insufficient.
UNION SWITCH & SIGNAL CO. et at v. PHILADELPHIA &: R. R. CO. et al. (Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. June 18, 1895.) No. 66.
PLEADING IN PATENT CASES-MULTIFARIOUSNESS-AMENDMENTS TO BILL.
Where a blll for infringement of five separate patents was declared bad for multifariousness, held, that an amendment averring the conjoint use by defendants of the subject-matter of each of the patents in one and the same connected machine, mechanism, or apparatus shOUld be allowed.
This was a bill by the Union Switch & Signal Company and others against the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company and others for infringement of five separate patents relating to improvements in electric signaling apparatus for railroads. The bill was hereto-
COLLINS V. GLEASON.
fore, on demurrer, held bad for multifariousness. 68 Fed. 913. Complainants now move to vacate the order sustaining the demur· rer, and for leave to amend the bill. J. Snowden Bell and George H. Christie, for complainants. Witter & Kenyon, for defendants. DALLAS, Circuit Judge. When the demurrer to the bill in this case was originally argued, the impression was made upon my mind that it was conceded by complainants that the respective subjectsmatter of the five patents sued on were not used in one mechanism, but upon different, though contiguous, parts of the same railroad. Upon this understanding, I held the bill to be multifarious, and upon that ground sustained the demurrer. The complainants now move to vacate that order, and for leave to amend their bill by adding thereto the following:
"And your orators in this behalf further aver the fact to be that the con· joint use made by the defendants herein as herein averred includes a use of a material and substantial part of the subject-matter of each of the said recited patents in one and the same connected machine, mechanism, or apparatus."
COLLINS v. GLEASON. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. June 28. 1895.)
The discovery that sheets of celluloid, which, by reason of their frangi· bility, were not adapted for use as card cases and book covers, couId be sewed between leather bindings, and held by their stitches so as to be used for these purposes, held to be sufficiently novel to support a patent. The Collins patent, No. 405,874, for celluloid bindings of leather for card cases and book covers, held valid and infringed.
This was a bill in equity by Kate J. Collins against Thomas Jay Gleason for infringement of a patent for bindings of leather for eel· luloid card cases and book covers.