Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1877-10-03
Judge Miller's Declslen In the Great
H. "a Milling Case.


Yesterday morning Mr.. Justic Miller,
tof the Supreme bench of the United
States, wh0ls sitting here in the United
States Circuit Court, rendered the
decision Of the Court upon the motion
Of the American Middlings Parifer
Company for a preliminary injunction
to issue against several milling COM
panies of this city.
The Court, to the eminent satisfaction.
OF the milling interestshere and through
out the country, has denied the applica-
ton ror apreliminary injunction. Had
the Injunction issued it would have had
the effect Of suspending business at
several OF the large mills, and thous-
ands would have been thrown out of
employment. Under the ruling of Mr..
Justice Miller there is no necessity to
enjoin the millers or to put them under
bonds pending final determination Of
the question of patent-right.
The opinion is in substance as follows:
The defendants avered that the
reserved patents differed from the
originals. This Mr.. Justice Miller
decides has not been sufficiently clearly
presented to destroy the validity of the
patent, the presumption being that the
Patent Commissioners acted rightly as
to the objection that the patent was de-
void of. novelty. The opinion states
that this point also has not been so
satisfactorily presented as to upset the
plaintiffs claim. LII
The petition charges the defendants
with infringing several patents issued to
William A. Cochrane, all ofwhich have
been assigned to plaintiff. These
patents are reissues following upon a
surrender of the original patents, and
they relate 10 the ''new process" as it
is called, Of making superior flour out
Of middlings. g.. -.., ..-
The patent Of principal Importance in
the case is for the process by which
these middlings are purified and con-
verified into flour, and the others are
patents for several machines used in the
process. The bill prays for prelimi-
nary injunction.
The defences are, first, that the patents
are invalid, and second, that If invalid
they have not been infringed by defen-
dants.
The patents are found to be valid by
the Judgment of the Supreme Court of
the United States in the case Of Coch-
rane VS.. Deener, and, while that judy
ment Is not an estoppel as to defcu-
dants because they were not parties to
the former, it is not denied that it is
conclusive in this Court as to the princi-
pies which it decides, and raises a
prima facie presumption of the validity
Of these patents. s... ~. ..
To avoid the legitimate effect of that
| Judgment, it is alleged by defendants
that the Judgment of the Supreme
Court was obtained by fraudulent
collision between the plaintiffs and the
defendants, imposing upon the court
what it believed to be,a genuine contest
while in facti it was intended and desired
by both parties that the patent of the
plaintiffs should be established by its
Judgment. There is a failure to prove
that position. .....
The fact that parties to this suit have
filed a motion to vacate the Supreme
Court judgment Oh that ground certainly
has no tendency to prove it, nor can a
presumption of such collision arise from
the fact that the case was heard on
printed argument instead oforal.
1t is next urged that the relssued
patents are void, because they differ
from the originals IN important partic-
ulars, and it is said that this issue was
rot before the Supreme Court.
1t appears to be true that no such
question was considered, and if it was
satisfactorily shown we should give the
defendants the benefit fit; but the
action of the officers of the Patent
Office in reissuing these patents is pre-
sumed to be right. -. ..--s- e..
The allegation that the decision in
the Deener case was obtained by
collision is declared not to be sustained
by the evidence. g.. r 7s liz
The Court holds that the preponder-
ance of evidence is not in favor of the
plaintiffs, who have presented but one
witness and two atfidavits. By law the
burden of proof rests on the plaintiffs,
Who have not satisfactorily established
the Infringement. The Court holds that
there is no necessity to enjoin the st.
Louis millers at the busiest season Of
the year, or to put them under bonds,
but orders an account to be kept Of the
working of tn mills, and that the APP
paratus employed be subject to PLAIN
tiffs inspection. The Injunction is
denied. ....
Judge Dillon concurs.
|