Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/771

 OALKINS V. BERTRAND. 757; �liar to defendants' machine the, complainant had no interestin, and,, it is claimed, are covered by patents held by defendants. ,., �Upon this reference so made to him the master reported the gross profits made by defendants on all machines made by them during the years in question at $33,354:.75i from whioh he deducted 10 per cent, as manufacturer's profits, leaving anet profit of $80,023.75 made by defendants on the machines made by them. To this report excep- tions were filed by the defendants, and the matter was referred to the master for further action, with thefqllowiiig directions: �"To further inquire irito and report more fullyrWhat profits have been made by the defeiidants upon the machines manufactured by them durjng the years 1870 to 1874, inclusiive, and 3.180 vi;hat portion of said profits reporf;ed by him as njade by the defendants on tiieir sa,id machine is or may be due to the pateiteddevices and iifliirovemerits of the said defendants containea in said machines, and the vaille of the said defendants' improvements found -in'their said' machine which ought to be deducted from the gross amount Of profita found l^ said master."' ■ t. ; ; �Upon this reference the master bas made a further reporty in whiah he has fourd the total number of machines madeby the defendants in all the years in qiiestiori as follows: 1870, 5e3; 1871,1 1,300; 1872, 937; 1873,' 740; 1874, 600; total, 4,020.^ Thai th& gross profits madei by defefldaiits on said machines amount'ed to $41,217.50, from which he bas deducted for rent, interest, taxes; adverfcising, losses on bad debts, and wear of machinery, $9,888.42, and for clerk hire at-the rateofa thousand dollars a yearto each defendant for the four years, making a total of $8,000 ; making total of deductions $17,838.42, and leaving a net profit of $23,470.08. The maeter concludes, and so reports to the court, that one-half.of. the net profits so found should be deducted as the proportionate amount due to the patented devices and improvements of the defend- ants contained in said machines, leaving the sum of $11,735.54 as the amount of profits made by defendants which should be accounted for and paid to complainant for such infringement. The reason given by the master for dividing the profits equally between the com- plainant and defendants is that the proof furnished no reliable data on which to fix the amount of profits made by defendants from the use of complainant's device in their cultivators, or for showing the a,mount of dediiction which ought to be made from the net profits of the business by the use of defendants' own patented devices, and that he, therefore, resorted to a division of the profits as the most equita- ble and just rule which he could adopt under the circumstancea. To ��� �