¶1My attention having been directed by this motion to the averments of the answer, it appears doubtful, to say tlie least, whether, in the present state of the pleadings, a decree adverse to the Votti patent could properly he passed upon the ground stated in the opinion filed herein. Schneider v. Thill [Case No. 12,470a], It will he advisable, therefore, and perhaps avoid the necessity of an examination of the other grounds of defense, to direct a rehearing of the ease so far as it relates to the Votti patent, with liberty to the defendant to apply for leave to amend the answer. I see no reason for a further hearing in regard to the mold patents. An order may, therefore, be entered directing a rehearing of the cause uppn the.issues raised in regard to the Votti *719patent, with leave to the defendant to apply for permission to amend the answer.
21 F. Cas. 718
Schneider v. Thill
U.S. District Court
Decided August 15, 1880
U.S. District Court · decided 1880-08-15
[This was a bill in equity by Bennett V. Schneider against Francis Thill, for the infringement of reissued letters patent No. 7.-511, granted to Carl Votti February 13, 1877, the original letters patent, No. 182,973, having been granted October 3, 1876.]
Decided 1880-08-15