Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1878-01-16
The COchrane Patents.

lie COCuISuc TSUcutDs
SOME one has sent us copy Of the
argument of George Harding of Phila.,
before the supreme court, ona motion
to set aside former decree in the
case OF the Middlings Purifier Company.
Below will be found the opinion Of the
court. While it declines to set aside
the decree as between the parties to it.,
it expressly says that the case was not
properly presented before it and should
not be allowed to prejudice any other
party. This, as we understand, was all
the millers desired. All there was for
the Washington ring of conspirators to
stand upon, was this supreme court de-
cision, and now that that is taken from
them, they are left in very unenviable
position. We are glad that the supreme
court has seen its error, and retraced
its steps. The case is very remarka-
BILE one, and shows more clearly than
anything that has ever gone before, the
necessity of some radical changes in
our patent laws. Here was decision
obtained in the supreme court Of per-
haps the greatest importance, and most
far-reaching in its consequences of any
ever before that court, now proved and
confessed to have been obtained in a
case every imperfectly presented"
which imperfect presentation the court
say is demonstrated to have been
IN consequence of q conditional arrange
ment with the appellants, secured before the
arrangement pas had" That conditional
arrangement was, that the parties de-
PENDANT should have license fora nom-
inal sum in case decree was entered
up against them, and they really had
no interest in going to the expense and
trouble of defending it. We congratu-
late the consumers and producers of
bread, that this fraud has come to such
speedy and disgraceful end.
The following is the opinion of the
court in the case:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
or.NI N or the COURT DEL vEsED By Mr.. JUSTICE
BRADLEY.
After a careful examination of the
evidence adduced on the motion TO va
cate the decree in this case, we see no
ground to believe that the appellants
are chargeable with any collision with
the appellees in reference to the argu-
ment of the appeal. On the contrary,
the weight Of the evidence is, that they
repealed any arrangement or propO-
sitlon which might look to that end.
Whilst We would not hesitate to set
aside decree collusively obtained, the
proof ought to be very clear to induce
us to do this Mt the instance Of strangers
to the suit, though incidentally affected
by the decision of the questions involv-
cd.
At the same time, as the decision IN this
case is made TIE basis Of applications for
in,mctions against third parties in the
Circuit Court, it is right that we should
say, that in the argument of the appeal
before us, the case on the part Of the
appellees, ,cds as It seemedto as, uery i'm
perfectly presented: and the evidence laid
before us on this motion demonstrates
the fact that the appellees, IN consequence
Of the conditional arrangement with the ap-
pellants, which they searched before the argu-
ment mas had, or for some other Gauss.
omitted to prosecute their defense Wih that
degree Of zeal and efficiency which the I'M
portance Of the case mouid otherwise haze
demanded The result was, that the
labor of the court, and its liability to
overlook points Of weight and impor-
lance, were greatly increased AS the
case was presented to us, we see no
cause for changing our views. But UNI
der the circumstances ne think that third
parties, uho had no opportunity Of being
heard, and rhose interests us opposed to Me
Coc.rdne patents, are very important should
not be concluded from haring Il further hear
ing upon il rheneuer future case may be
presented for our consideration.
The motion is denied with costs.
(True copy