Statement
by JENKINS, District Judge:
The
appellee, on the 11th day of June, 1888, filed its bill in
the court below to restrain the alleged infringement by the
present appellant of letters patent of the United States No
242,497, dated the 7th day of June, 1881, issued to Edgar A
Wright for improvements in cultivators. The bill, besides the
usual averments in such suits, charged that on December
1887, the complainant (the present appellee) 'commenced
suit by bill in chancery against David Bradley & Co. in the
circuit court of the United States for the southern district
of Iowa to restrain the said David Bradley & Co. from
infringing the aforesaid letters patent; that the said David
Bradley & Co. is and was a branch house of the David Bradley
Manufacturing Company, the defendant herein, and was engaged
in selling the identical cultivators manufactured by the
defendant herein; that the defendant herein undertook and
managed the defense of said suit against its branch house
employing counsel for that purpose, and conducting the
defense, but it conducted the defense in the name of the said
branch house, the defendant named of record; that the
defendant herein, answering said bill in the name of the said
branch house, denied the validity of said letters patent, and
any infringement thereof, to which answer a replication was
filed by your orator, and thereupon your orator and the
defendant proceeded to take and took their respective proofs,
and, the same having been taken, the said cause was heard on
final hearing at the May term of said court at Des Moines, A.
D. 1888. And the said court, having considered the proofs and
the arguments of counsel, did adjudge and decree that the
said David Bradley & Co. had infringed the said letters
patent, and did enjoin the aforesaid David Bradley & Co. from
further infringement thereof, which said decree remains in
full force and unreversed; all of which proceedings and
things will more fully appear by a certified copy of the
records of said court, which your orator is ready at any time
to produce in court, as may be directed; and your orator
attaches hereto a certified copy of said decree, marked
'Exhibit C.' And your orator further shows that the
cultivators sold by the said David Bradley & Co. were made by
the defendant
herein under letters patent of the United States No. 243,123,
to C. A. Hague, dated June 21, 1881, and No. 270,629, to B.
C. Bradley, January 16, 1883, which said patents were issued
to the Furst & Bradley Manufacturing Company as assignee of
said Hague and Bradley, and passed to the defendant herein,
the successor of the said Furst & Bradley Manufacturing
Company. The said cultivators as made by the defendant are
correctly shown by the drawings in the said letters patent to
said B. C. Bradley.'
The
decree referred to in the bill as 'Exhibit C' is as
follows: 'This cause came on to finally heard upon the
pleadings and proofs, and was argued by counsel for the
respective parties, and, the pleadings and proofs having been
duly considered, it is hereby, this 23d day of May, 1888,
ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows, viz.: The letters
patent referred to in complainant's bill, being letters
patent of the United States, granted unto Edgar A. Wright,
for improvements in cultivators, No. 242,497, and dated June
7, 1881, is a good and valid patent; and that the said Edgar
A. Wright was the first and original inventor of the
improvements therein described and claimed; and that the said
complainant had at the commencement of this cause a good and
legal title to said letters patent No. 242,497, as averred in
complainant's bill; and that the said defendant has
infringed the said patent, and upon the exclusive rights of
the complainant under the same, as claimed in the first four
claims of said patent. And it is further ordered, adjudged,
and decreed that the defendant above named, its servants,
agents, operatives, and workmen, each and every one of them,
be, and they are, perpetually enjoined and restrained from
either directly or indirectly making, using, or selling to
others to be used, cultivators constructed and operated in
the manner and upon the principle described in said letters
patent of the United States No. 242,497. And it is further
ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the complainant recover
of the defendant the profits which it has received or made or
which have accrued to it by the use or sale of the
improvements described and secured by said letters patent at
any and all times since June 7, 1881, and also the damages
which the complainant has sustained thereby. And as it does
not appear to the court what said profits and damages are, it
is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that this cause be
referred to George F. Henry, Esq., a master of this court, to
take and report to the court an account of the profits which
the defendant has received, or which have arisen or accrued
to it from the use or sale of said improvements, and to
ascertain and report the damages which the complainant has
sustained thereby since June 7, 1881, from the papers and
evidence in the cause, and from any evidence which either
party may produce before him of the same; and when he shall
have taken an account of said profits and assessed said
damages he shall return the same to this court for further
action in the premises. And it is further ordered, adjudged,
and decreed that the complainant on such accounting has the
right to cause an examination of the officers, agents, and
employes of the defendant ore tenus or otherwise, and also
the production before said master at such time as said master
may order of the books, vouchers, and documents of the
defendant, and that the officers of said defendant attend
before said master from time to time within this district as
said master shall direct. And it is further ordered that the
question of increase of damages, and all other questions, be
reserved until the coming in of the master's report. And
it is ordered that the parties and master may apply on the
foot of this decree for such other and further order of
instruction as may be necessary. And it is further ordered,
adjudged, and decreed that the complainant recover of the
defendant the costs of this suit to be taxed.'
The
answer of the defendant (the present appellant) contains the
following admissions respecting such charges: 'Fourth.
This defendant, further answering, admits that a suit was
commenced by the Eagle Manufacturing Company, the complainant
herein, against David Bradley & Co. in the circuit court of
the United States for the southern district of Iowa,
substantially as in said bill alleged. They admit that said
David Bradley & Co. was and is a separate corporation, and in
part a branch house or agency of this defendant, and was
engaged in selling, with other machinery, cultivators
manufactured by this defendant. They admit that said suit was
to a certain extent defended by this defendant. They admit
that pleadings were filed, and proofs
taken, as set forth in said bill. Fifth. This defendant,
further answering, admits that said last-named suit was heard
at the time and place alleged in said bill, and that a decree
was rendered adjudging that said David Bradley & Co. had
infringed the said letters patent No. 243,497, and that the
said David Bradley & Co. was enjoined from further
infringement thereof; but this defendant avers that in said
cause the finding of the court was against the defendant,
largely, if not wholly, by reason of the said court not
understanding the operation of the machine shown in one of
the patents set up as anticipating the supposed invention of
complainant's patent, to wit, the Dalton patent of 1869;
and this defendant has reason to believe, and does believe,
that if the court had fully understood the machine of said
patent, the finding and decree would have been different.
Sixth. This defendant, further answering, admits that the
cultivators sold by the said David Bradley & Co. were made by
this defendant under and in accordance with letters patent of
the United States No. 243,123, dated June 21, 1881, to C. A.
Hague, and No. 270,629, dated January 16, 1883, to B. C.
Bradley.'
There
was given in evidence in this suit the following admission by
the defendant: 'In the suit pending in the circuit court
of the United States for the southern district of Iowa,
wherein the Eagle Manufacturing Company is complainant, and
David Bradley & Co. defendant, and which suit was brought to
restrain the infringement of the letters patent in suit
herein, the defendant in this cause, the David Bradley
Manufacturing Company, employed counsel, took charge of and
conducted the defense of said suit in the name of the said
Bradley & Co., and paid the expenses thereof. This was done
by the defendant herein, the same as it would be done by it
for any agent, branch house, or customer engaged in selling
implements purchased of the defendants, if sued for
infringement of a patent on account of selling such
goods.'
It also
appeared in evidence that in the suit in the circuit court of
the United States for the southern district of Iowa against
David Bradley & Co., the master, to whom the cause was
referred to ascertain and report the complainant's
damages, on or before October 15, 1889, reported to the court
as follows: 'That the complainant has already brought
suit against the manufacturer of the cultivators which were
sold by the defendant, electing to recover in full of said
manufacturer all profits and damages arising from the sales
by the defendant herein as well as other profits and damages
and for that reason will offer no proof of profits and
damages...
