¶1The decision of the court in the two preceding cases, namely/that where a patent is renewed under the. act of 1836, an assignee under the old patent has a right to continue the use of the maahine which he is using at-the time of the.renewal, again affirmed.
¶2This Case came up, by appeal, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, sitting as á court of equity.
¶3The bill was filed by Wilson, as' the assignee of William W. Woodworth, the administrator of Woodworth, the patentee, as stated in the report of the preceding case. It set out the patent, and assignment, and then prayed for an injunction afad account.
¶4The answer referred to the mutual assignment made between Woodworth and Strong on the one part, afid Toogood, Halstead, Tyack, and Emmons of the other part, which was recited in the preceding case, and traced title regularly down fróm these latter parties to the defendants.
¶5A statement of these facts was agreed upon by counsel, and all the documents set forth at length ; and upon this statement, together with the bill and answer, the cause was argued.
¶6At April term, 1845, the court dismissed the hill, and from this. decreo the case was brought up, by appeal, to this court.
¶7It'.was argued by Mr. Phelps and Mr. Webster, for Wilson, the appellant, ap'd Mr. Schley, for the appellees, who were thé deíendants below.
¶9delivered the opinion of the court'.
¶10The judgment of the court- in the previous -case of Wilson v. -Rousseau et al. disposes of the quéstións in this case, and affirms the decree of the Circuit Court.