Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/814

 802 FEDERAL «EpOBTEB. �The first, third, and fourth claims set forth in the oom» plaiuant's patent read as followa : "First. Ttat each bimg is eut by a fish-mouth chisel from a separate square block of wood of the same diameter as the bung, thus saving the material, and lessening the strain on &e.maehine. . Third. That the parts of my machine are so arrangea that the chisel finishes one blank and partly cuts another at each operation, instead of cutting a single blank at each stroke. This ena- bles me to accomplish the next feature, -which is — Fourth. That the block* fed ihto the machine at'each stroke serves as a cutting board fpr the block already partly eut and on the chisel, thus giving a clean, smooth surface for the chisel to. eut against, and securing the edges of the blank from fray- ing, and the edge of the chisel from injury." �It was agreed before the master that the defendants had manufactured 1,387 barrels of bungs and taps, which they soldfor $7,928.40, and that after deducting the costof mate- rial, expense of manufaeturing and sale, there was left a net profit of $182, The master found that the use of the com- plainant's improvement contributed to the aggregate profits; that it was impossible, on the evidence before him, to sepa- rate the particular profits which resulted from the use of the complainant's invention, in connection with the other ma- chipery, from the aggregate profits; aod the burden being ou. the defendants to make the separation, which they had failed to do, the complainant was entitled to a decree for the entire profits. This findiug of the master was based upon the ruling in the City of Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. 97 U. S. 126. Bung-cuttiiig machines were in use before the date of the complainant's patent, which was for an improvement only in Buch machines. The defendants used a bung-cutting ma- chine with the complainant's improvement applied, and the general business resulted in profits. The complainant sued the infringers for an injunction and profits. He has got his injunction, and the master has given him the entire profits of the business, on the ground that the defendants failed to separate the profits traceable to the complainant's improvement from the general profits. It was not suffi- ����