Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/820

 800 FBDEBAIa EBPOBTEB. �though the aet be silent as to aecessories. Why not the procurer and aider here ? The argument that the abettor and aider should escape the punishraent affixed on the statute which declares the act a mis- demeanor, does not commend itself to my judgment. See authoritiea cited in 4 Dill. 410 ; also, Eass. Crimes. The prisoner is remanded. Bail axed. ���American Saw Co. v. Emeesoh. �(Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. December 21, 1880. J �1. Lbttees Patent— Infbingement—IHeasuiie of Damages. �The measure of damages for the unauthorized sale of a patented article is the dilierence betweeH the cost priee to the patentee and the market priee when the sales were made. �In Equity. Exceptions to master's report. �The suit was for infringement of patent No. 66,692, granted to defendant on July 16, 1867, for improvement in saws, and assigned to complainant. The improvement consisted merely in providing the saw with a series of holes, corresponding with the wear oi the teeth, to facilitate dressing or filing the saw. Defendant contended that complainant was entitled to only so much of the profit as was due to the presence in a saw of the holes, over an ordinary saw without them. Complainant contended and the master held that there was or should be only one perforated saw, and that the complainant was enti- tled, as damages, for all saws sold by defendant, to the difference between complainant's cost and selling price of an equal number of saws. �The master cited Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788; Oawood Patent, 94 TJ. S. 695; Pitts v. Hall, 2 Blatchf. 229; Cotffing v. Rumsey, 8 Blatchf. 36; ffostetter v. VowinMe, 1 Dill. 329; ahd found that the case of Buerk v, Im- haeiuser, 10 O. G. 907, differed from this, because in that case it appeared that there were other watches in the market. �Knox dt Reed and G. A. Van Dorn, for complainant. �Bqkewell e Kerr, for defendant. �MoKennan, C. J. The rule for the ascertainment of the damages, adopted by the master, is fairly deducible from the cases discussed in his report, and, it may be said, from others of corresponding tenor which might be cited. It is appropriate to this case, if it is not the only practicable one. The difficulty is in the administration of it. It is not an unreasonable inference that the profit derived by the complainants from the sale of their saw is due to the patented improvements embodied in it. Hence it was proper to take the dif- ference between the cost of its manufacture and the price at which ��� �