Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/379

 M'OEABT V. PENNSYL VANIA OAITAli 00. 367 �and granting said decree even before connsel had completed the argument and presentation of the same." �Hatch e Stem, for plaintiffs. �Samuel S. Boyd, for defendants. �Blatchfoed, C. J. The first exception specified that the matter excepted to is impertinent, not that it is scandalous. The bill alleges that the decision in the suit against Foree was made "after full consideration. " The answer denies that it was made after full consideration, and then proceeds to allege that it was, "on the contrary," made under certain alleged circum stances, which, if proved, would go to show that it was not made after full consideration. But there is nothing in the circumstances alleged which makes the allega- tion scandalous, or which contains any imputation on the court. The matter excepted to is neither impertinent nor scandalous. �The second exception is for insufficiency, and seema to be based on the idea that while the bill alleges substantially that the defendants have used the process claimed in the first claim of the patent, the answer does not speeifically deny that allegation. But the answer expressly denies that the defend- ants have praoticed the invention described in the first claim. �The exceptions are overruled, with costs. ���MoCeabt u. The Pennsylvania Canal Co.* {Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylmnia. Octob'er 28, 1880.) �, Patent— EB-issuE-^lMMATEKiAii.^AKrATioN FnoM Devicbis ts Orio- mAii Patent. — An imraaterial diSerence between a re-issue and the original patent, •which does not aHect the mode of operation, the man- ner of construction, or the f unction perf ormed, will not invaUdate the re-issue. �. Same — RefusaIi of Injunctioii wheue Grbat Injttiit wottld Re- sult to Defendant. — Where the allowance of an injunction would cause much greater injury to respondent than benefit to complainant, the decree will be only for an account. �«Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Ejq., of the Philadelphia bar. ����