Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/831

 D. S., ETC., FELTING CO. V. ASBESXOS FELTINO 00. 811 �proof and in this suit that the defendant Bupplied tite cover- ing for boilera and pipes used by the defendant in the Mas- Bachusefcs suit; that the president of the defendant employed the counsel who defended that suit, and that the defendant paid for the services of said counsel. The record in the Massachusets suit shows that that suit was brought on said patent No, 114,711, with other patents; that the answer in that suit sets forth that the things claimed in the Eiley pat- ent were before Eiley invented those described in the patent No. 100,354, granted to Baumann March 1, 1880, and known to and used by said Baumann ; and that the finding of the court was that the defendant had infringed the first and sec- ond claims of the patent No. 114,711. On the foregoing f acts it must be held that the record in the Massachusets suit is proper evidence in this suit, and that the judgmentinthat suit concludes the defendant as to the Baumann patent, and as to the alleged prior knowledge and use by Baumann. �For the same reasons that judgment concluded the defend- ant as to the patent No. 76,773, granted April 14, 1868, to Henry W. Johns, and as to any alleged prior knowledge and use by Johns, the Eiley patent is not invalidated by the Hardy & Lay patent, No. 94,739, or the Selden & Kid patent, No. 83,414, or the French patent, No. 94,882, or any of the other patents or matters put in evidence by the defendant. �The proof is satisfactory that the defendant bas infringed the first and second claims of the plaintifï's patent, and there must be a decree for the plaintiff for a perpetuai injunction, and an account of profits and damages, with costa. �v.4,no.9— 53 ����