Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/535

 COBUBN V. SCHROEDEB. ' 521 �but that any box or case was made having more than two layers of eelJs, Bo that any of the cells had all their sides, irrespective of the walls of the box or case, or so that any of them -were adapted to transporting eggs, as those patented are, before the invention, is not shown beyond fair doubt, as is required in order to defeat a patent. Those shown were adapted to small articles desired to be kept sep- arate and dispos ed of singly, and not adapted to handling eggs in — ■ to be disposed of in dozens at a time. It is not claimed that any of them were actually used for the transportation of eggs, and that fact goes strongly to show that none were made which could be so used to advantage. �ihe evidence upon which it is claimed that the invention was made by John L. Stevens alone consista wholly in paroi proof of loose statements and admissions, which are so explained or denied that they f all far short of showing, by the measures of proof required' to defeat a patent, that the invention was known to and used by one before it was by both. �There are some questions as to the relation between the defend- ants which may affeet the accounting, but are not necessary to be decided now. �Let there be a decree against the defendants Schroeder and Seavers that the patent is valid, and that they have infringed, and for an injunc- tion and an account against them, according to the prayer of the bill. ���CoBUBK and others v. Schroeder and others. �(Circuit Court, S. I). Weu) York, Aujfust 3, 1881.) �1. Inteblocutory Decrke— "Gains, Bavings, and Aj)VAin'AQE8"— Costs. �An interlocutory decree directing an account of the gains, mvings, ana ad- vantage» due to the infringement of a patent, in addition to the profits, and awarding eosi», hdd, to be proper. �2. Costs in Equitt — How Awardbd. �Costs generally, in equity, do not follow as a matter of right, as in proceed- ings at law, but are subject to the discretion of the court, and are awarded as part of the decree, or they cannot be recovered. �Andrew J. Todd, for orators. �Samuel Greenbaum, for defendants. �Whebleh, D. J. Objection is made to the proposed decree in this case because an account is directed of the gains, profits, savings, and advantages of the infringement, instead of profits merely, and because costs are awarded, to be taxed, with execution to issue, by ��� �