Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/571

 556 FEDERAL REPORTER. �the whole of the meat and pack the can with it, compressing it iiito a solid raass, then beat and seal it up f rom the air. and reheat it to combine any fiee oxygen that may possibly be left in the can." �Here we have in both cases solid meats, and in one case cooked meats, packed in cans for preservation. Neither of these patentees tell ua the shape of their cans. But we cannot see how, with conical and pyramidal cans well known in the art as packages for the pres- ervation of meats and other food, and the old art of paeking or com- pressing meats solidly into cans, there can be any invention which should be proteoted by a patent in taking these well-known shaped cans and pressing into them cooked meat so as to form a solid mass or cake. The can was old and the meat cake was old, �The resuit is that the bills will be dismissed. ���Hebring V. Gas Consumees' Association.* �{Circuit Court, E. D. Misaouri. March 28, 1878.) �1. iNPBINaEMBNT OF PATENT BY JolliT OWNER. �A part owner of a patent bas no right to use an infringing device. If he does he is liable to his co-owaer for the wrong done. �2. Same— Amount op Recovery. �Whan a nart owner of a patent sues a co-owner for usina: an infringing device, the recovery, if any, will be in proportion to theii respective mteresta. �In Equity. Demurrer. �J. H. Blair, for plaintifi. �H. B. Wilson and John McGuffy, for defendant. �Treat, D. J. The plaintifi avers, substantially, that he is owner of an undivided two-thirds interest in the patent described, and that the defendant is owner of the other undivided one-third interest ; that the defendant is using a device which is an infringement upon their common patent, and that he is so doing under cover of their common patent. Hence the claim for damages for said infringement, — not for the entire amount thereof, but for plaintiff's proportion, to-wit, two-thirds. �The direct question presented is whether an infringer of a patent can escape liability for his infringement because he is a joint owner of the original patent upon which the infringement occurs. �The cases eited do not reach the precise point raised by the bill. It is evident that if a Etranger was guilty of the infringement he ��� �
 * Published by request.