Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/818

 806. FEDERAL REPORTER. �him. There can be nO privity of estate or title -wlien no estate or title passes. If Campbell did aioquire the right to the patent, the "piaintiff bas no right to it and no case; if be did not, there is no privity between them through wbich the conolusiveness of the decree can reach him. The abiiity of the plaintiflf to maintain a suit against James depends upon bis having suoh a title to the patent as will, under the stat- utes of the United States relating to patents, give the right to sue for an infringement. Gihson v. Cook, 2 Blatcbf. 144; Gordon v. Anthony, 16 0. G. 1135. The plaintiff's bill sets up suoh a title, but not any infringement of the right. It shows a recovery by Campbell, but fails to show anything entitling the plaintifE to Campbell's recovery. �The demurrer is sustained, the bill is adjudged insufficient, and a decree ordered dismissing the bill as to James, with costs. ���Campbell v. James and others.* �{Oircuit Court, 8. D. Neui York. September 14, 1880.j �1. Patent — AssiGii!»rENT op Gains and Phofits — Right Acquihbd Aftee Dbcreb in Equitt. �In Equity. Motions for Eehearing. �Marcus P. Norton and George H. Williams, for plaintiff. �Sam'l B Clarke, Asst. U. S. Att'y, Edward D. Bettens, and Esek Cowen, for defendants. �Wheelee, d. J. This cause bas been further heard upon the motion of the defendant James for a rehearing in chief upon the question of prior knowledge and use at the Philadel- phia post-office, and upon the exceptions to the master's re- port; upon the motion of the defendants Clexton and Caswell for a rehearing upon the question as to the passing of the title of Eddy to the patent by bis assignment for the benefit of bis creditors; upon the motion of the plaintiff for a rehearing �*See 2 Fbd Rep. 33S. ����