Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/350

 CAMPBELL ». JAMES. 343 �to ïhe o-vraer of the patent, but that is no just answer to the claims of the owner now belonging to the orator. �Justice can only be done by requiring the defendant to xestore the gains to those to whom they belong, and leave him to be protected as the law provides, and ia doing this no injustice will be done to any one. �That bis officiai character did not excuse the înfringement ias already been beld, upon what seems to be abundant authority, in this case. If he is liable as an infringer as if he were an ordinary individual, he must be liable to the estent of the consequences as an ordinary individual would be, without regard to bis reckoning over with the government. His officiai character is not any sbield against the owners of the patent, although it may be a source of indemnity against the consequences. �The other questions relate to wbo, as between themselves, bave the right to recover what is recovered, or the right to control the disposition of what is recovered, in whioh, appar- ently, the defendant James bas no interest. These questions are of two kinds, one of the kinds is of questions relating to the right when the suit was commenced ; the other, relating to rights since acquired. It is said by counsel for some of the claimants that this court bas not jurisdiction of ail these questions, because some of them rest upon contraots between the parties not citizens of different states, and do not in volve any question under the patent laws of the United States. The suit was brought by the plaintiff alone against the de- fendant James alone. Objection was made by the defend- ant that Charles Eddy was an owner of an interest in the patent, and that the suit could not properly proceed witbout him; whereupon Eddy appeared and became a party to the suit, under a stipulation stating that he claimed that his rights were fixed and determined by an assignment of one- third of the patent to him, and a contemporaneous agreement, dated October 23, 1869; and the plaintiff that they were determined by an agreement in writing among the owners of the patent, dated October 1, 1871, and that the cause should proceed upon the evidence taken, unless the court should olh* ����