Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/346

 OAUPBELIi V. JAHEB. 839 �Equitt — Pabties to Peoceedings. — It is not important in equity pro- ceedings, lor every purpose, that ail the parties to the controversy should be upon opposite sides in the formai pleadings. �Patent — Adjustmbnt op Damages. — Rights of difïere,nt parties to the damages allowed for certain infriugements adjusted and determined. �In Equity. �Geo. H. Williams and Marcus P. Norton, for complainants. �Stewart L. Wood/ord and Samuel Clark, for defendants. �Whkeler, D. J. This cause bas now been beard upon the report of the master, and exceptions tbereto as to the liabil- ity of the defendant James ; and upon the stipulations under wbicb -tbe otber defendants became parties, and by wbicb tbeir rights, as between tbemselves and the plaintiff, were Bubmitted to the coui-t, and the evidence in support of tbeir respective claims as to tbose rights. �From the report it appears that the defendant James be- came postmaster at the city of New York on the first day of April, 1873, wbile the patent in suit was owned by Helen M. Ingalls, and commenced using the patented invention, and bas ever since continued the use in performance of bis duties; that on the second day of January, 1877, she conveyed the patent to the plaintiff, and assigned to him her claims for past inf ringement ; and that the gains and profits to the de- fendant James, in the saving of salaries of clerks to perform the duties required of him by the post-office department, have been $63,000, due to bis infringement. �Tbe principal and contïolling questions arising upon the report and exceptions are whetber the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this suit as -well for the infringement before the assignment to him as for that after; and whetber the de- fendant James is liable to account for the gains and profits received by him as postmaster, eitber as such or as damages. �It ia not pretended, by or on bebalf of the defendant, but that an assignee of such claims may maintain a suit upon tbem in bis own name in equity, (2 Story's Eq. § 1007,) but it is insisted that the bill in this cause does not cover such claim, and that the evidence does not show an assignment of such claim from Miss Ingalls to the plaintiff. It is true. ����