machines referred toby the respondents anticipated the patent of the complainant. The bill is dismissed, with costs. BAXTER, C. J., concurs in this opinion.
MACAULAY v. WHITE SEWING MACHINE Co. and others.(Oircuit Court, S.
n. New York.
LETTERS PATENT-VIOLATION OF INJUNCTION.
Where defendant rendered itself amenable to the jurisdIction of the court by appearing in the action, and was enjoined from manufacturing; or selling articles infringing upon complainant's patent, held, that the inj1\nction was violated by the sale of such articles outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the court, whether they were sent within sULh jurisdiction ur not.
In Equity. F. H. Betts, for plaintiff. S. A. Duncan and S. J. Gordon, for defendants. BLATCHFORD, C. J. The injunction was served on Mr. Baylor and on the company. Although it was not served on Mr. White personally, be knew of its service. He, as president of the company, directed the doing of what the company did in violating the injunction. He did not intend to have the injunction violated j but it was violated by the company by selling machines at Cleveland and sending them frorn. there to purchasers. Whether they were sent by it within the territorial jurisdiction of this court or not, the company :made itself amenable to the jurisdiction of this court by appearing in this suit. The advice that it was no violation of the injunction for the company to sell machines at Cleveland so long as such machines were not sent by it within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, was erroneous advice. Moreover,' some of the machines so sold were sent by the company to places 'within this district, although Mr. White thought that this district comprised only the city of New York. Mr. White acted for the company. I do not think he ought to be punished personally. But the company must pay a fine of $250, which will go to the plaintiff towards his expenses and counsel fees about this motion. The profits and damages from the infringement involved in the vio. lation will remain to be accounted for in the suit. Mr. Baylor did not violate the injunction.
«<Heported by S. Nelson White, Esq., of the New York bar.
BOYKIN, CARMER & CO. v. BAKER & CO.
(Circuit Court, D. Maruland.
December 28, 1881.)
LETTERS PATENT-FERTILIZING COMPOUND.
Patent No. 206,077, July 16,1878, granted to Boykin, Cartner & Co. for an improved fertilizing compound, MJ,d to be invalid for want of any patentaule invention or discovery.
Slinglujf it Slingluff, for complainants. Snowden it Busey, for defendants.
. MORRIS,' D. J. This bill is filed by the complainants, Boykin, Carmer & Co., against the defendants, R. J. Baker & Co., .for an alleged infringement of patent No. 206,077, granted to the complainants July 16, 1878, upon application dated March 1, 1878, for an improved fertilizing compound. The respondents admit that they have been selling the same materials for fertilizing purposes in the same proportions as mentioned in the patented formula, but they claim that they had been doing so long before the date of the patent, and that the patent is invalid for want of novelty. The compound described in the patent is composed of (1) dissolved bone: (2) ground plaster; (3) nitrate of soda; (4) sulphate ·of soda; (5) sulphate of ammonia; (6) dry peat muck, unleached ashes, or any refuse matter having fertilizing properties, in the proportions set forth in the patent. The proof discloses that a formula for a fertilizer alleged to have been prepared and published by Baron Liebig has been known and in use among farmers and others for 25 or 30 years, and that it }Vas printed and circulated by both complainants and defendants long prior to the date of the patent. It is identical with the patented formula as to the ingredients, their proportions, and the directions for mixing them, in every respect, except that the Liebig formula, as miginally published, called for ground bone instead of dissolved bone, and calcined plaster instead of ground plaster. The issues raised by the pleadings and evidence are (1) whether the formula as patented, calling for dissolved bone or ground plaster, was in public use or on sale for more than two years prior to March 1, 1878, (the date of the application;) and (2) whether, if not so in use or on sale, the patented formula differs from the Liebig formula. in any patentable respect, and, if so, were the complainants the inventors or disco'iel'el's of the change constituting that difference.