Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/344

 PAGE V. HOLMES BTJRGLAB ALAEM TEL. CO. 337 �always be shown in another suit on the patent against an- other defendant, and even in answer to an application for a preliminary injunction in such suit, that the right elaimed by the plaintiff in the new suit was not, either as to its nature or its extent, fairly in controversy in the former suit, or that material facts were not known or considered -w-hen the for- mer suit was tried, or that there are relevant mattera which were not adjudicated in the former suit. American Nicolson Pavement Co. v. City of FAizabeth, 4 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 189. �These principles govem ail the circuit courts of the United States, and they apply to ail the matters urged by the petition- ers, for the petitioners allege nothing except what is elaimed by them to fall under one or another of the heads above referred to. In this view the petitioners will have every benefit, if they should be sued, in raising in the new suits what they seek to raise in this suit. On the other hand, the plaintiffs, if contest ing in this suit with the petitioners any new questions of law or fact, would be contesting them with persons who are not parties to this suit, and whom the plaintiffs may never sue. It will be entirely competent for this court, or any other court, to make in any new suit the qualification suggested by the petitioners in reference to the effect of the decision or the judgment in this suit, if it shall be a qualification proper to be made, because the record in this case will show the issues and the proofs, and the decision of the court will show what was considered and passed upon, and it is proper to make Buch qualification, if at ail, only in a new suit. �It is the province of courts to take proofs and render decis- ions only between parties litigant before it, and in respect to claims brought against parties, and to issues actually raised. No case bas been cited for the petitioners where a petition of quasi intervention, such as the present one, bas been admit- ted. The case of Cochrane v. Deener, 5 Otto, 355, is not at ail like the present case ; and, in effect, the petitioners in the present case will bave, in any future cases on this patent, to which they shall be parties, the privilege of a hearing in respect to what they seek to raise in this suit, as above set �v.2,no.3— 22 ����