Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/817

 SECOMBB V. CAMPBELL. 805 �creed to Campbell, and be decreed to pay it to the plaintiff, and for general relief. �There is no allegation of any infringement in faet by the defendant James. The only allegation upon that subject is that Campbell bas brought the bill against him for an in- fringement, and bas succeeded in establishing it by decree. Tbis bill is not brought against James for an infringement upon the rights of the plaintifF's intestate, but rests upon the right of the plaintiff to what has been decreed from James to Campbell in the suit between them. Neither is this in any sense a creditor's bill to reach the property of Campbell in the hands of James for the satisfaction of any debt due from Campbell to the plaintiff in the right of the intestate. The substance of it is that the plaintifiE's intestate was either the legal or the equitable owner of the patent; that Campbell has obtained a decree against James for infringement of the pat- ent; and that the plaintiff has the right to the recovery which Campbell haa shown himself entitled to. This claim cannot rest upon any privity between the plaintiff, or his intestate, and Campbell, entitling the plaintiff to stand upon the decree in favor of Campbell as conclusively establishing the infringement by James. That suit was brought for an infringement upon Campbell's rights, and the decree is con- clusive between the parties and their privies upon ail ques- tions as to that infringement while it stands. This suit is not brought for any infringement in faot, but is brought to reach the avails of the infringement established by that decree upon the rights of Campbell. If the rights infringed upon are Campbell's, they are not the plaintiff's, and were not his intestate's, and the plaintiff has no right to the fruits of the infringement; if they are the plaintiff's, this suit is not adapted to reach them. �If the plaintiff stood upon the faet that Campbell holds under his intestate, he might, with plausibility, claim that an adjudication in favor of Campbell was conclusive in his favor on account of, the privity ; but he does not so stand, The whole foundation of his case is that Campbell acquired no rights from his intestate, and that they have ail remained to ����