Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/104

 93 rKDEBAIi BEPOBTEa. �FiscHBB V. O'Shatjghnessei and another, (Circuit Court, 8. B. New Yorh. January 26, 1881.) �1. Joint IinfRiNGEMEKT— Plbading. �The objection that a bill does not allege an infringement by the defendants jointly should be taken by domurrer. �2. Lettees Patent No. 74,068, granted to Valentine Fischer, Pebruary �4, 1868, for an "improvement in machine for forming sheet-metal mouldings," are shown to be infringed, ns to thu fourth claim, by the evidence in this case. — [Ed. �In Equity. Suit for Infringement. �Charles F. Blake, for plaintiff. �James H. Whitelegge, for defendants. �Blatchfoed, C. J. au material questions involved in this case are covered by the decisions in the cases of the same plaintiJBf against Hayes and Neil, excepi the question of infringement. The bill contains the same allegation on that point as in the case against Neil. Mr. Abbott testifies that he saw at the defendants' shop, on the nineteenth of June, 1879, which was four days before the bill was sworn to, and five days before it was filed, a machine for bending sheet metal, of which he produces a drawing. He also describes the construction and mode of operation of the machine and the dies he so saw. It is clear that, to make or use such a machine in the way described, to bend sheet metal, infringes the fourth claim of the plaintiff's patent. Mr. Abbott says that, at the time of his said visit, he saw the defendant O'Shaughnessey in person, and that he admitted to him (Mr. Abbott) "that he had used the said machine as I have de- scribed whenever necessary, since lie had owned it for form- ing cornice and similar work." Neither of the defendants is sworn, nor is any witness produced to show that Mr. Abbott 's drawing or description is incorrect, or that the machine was not used by the defendants, or that the defendants had more than one machine. The answer states that the defendants are "advised that their machine does not conflict with that described in said letters patent of complainant." It also denies that the plaintiff has ever l'nfl auj just right, by virtue ��� �