Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/105

 MILLER V. LIGGETT & MEYBRS TOBACCO 00. ,93 �party who contrilt'uteB money for the purpose of employing counsel, and carrying on a iitigation, under a contract with a party to the record, must of necessity be. held to have the right tp,ta.ke,such action in the case as will protect his.pwn interest in it. As, for example, suppose thereis a case, whicii is understood to be a test case, involving the validity of. a patent, or anything else, against a particular individual, but involving a subject-matter concerning wbich a large number of other persons, are equally interested with the particular defendant in that case, and suppose all the parties who are interested, or a number of them, come together, enter into a contract that they will raise a fund to carry on that Iitigation, that they will unite for the purpose of employing counsel.jand combine to carry it on in the name of the party to the record, it seems to me that the persons who, under such a contract as .that, actually contribute money for the purpose of carry- ing on a suit, are authorized to go into that court and use the iiame of the party to the record in making such motions and taking such steps as are necessary for the protection of their particular interest in it- In other words, I suppose that, under the agreement which appears in this case, Mr. Boyd, who represents the defendant in that suit, can appear in that court and move for a rehearing, and can appear tji'ere in the name of his defendant in that case and take an appeal. The language of the circular, which was signed by these defendants, with others, is that counsel have been ret^ined by them tp "attend to all such suits;" that is, all suits involving the validity of this patent. The testimony shows that the defendants in this case have, in pursuance of this very agree- ment, contributed money to carry on that case in Keniucky. It may be, however, that the court in Kentucky might take a different view of that question from what we do. Weeannot decide for that court, and, of course, the decision of that court would be conclusive and final upon the parties. If the counsel for these defendants should appear in that court and should move for leave to appeal, and if that court should deny them that right, they might be without remedy if we were now, upon this question, to finally adjudicate ttis case; con- ��� �