New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-03-14
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

WASHINGTON, March ia decision OF I'm
rortnnce to all railroad companies who use what Is
known the Tanner Car brake, was rendered Oy Tie
ecre Court Of the United States to-day. in the case
of Charles T. Root executor Of Thomas sayes, appellant
a.anst the Lake shore and Michigan Southern Railway
Company on appeal from the circuit Court OF the
Tinted States FOR the Northern District or Iols ms
was suit IN equity brought bv SAyie7 against the rail-
way company alleged Infringement Of patent upon
an irproveuent ia brakes The patent upon which
tb o,usinau, Pounds his claim for damages Orig
,av ~ spt4d 20 Henry Gauner the Inventor of tho i'm
movement ON July g. 1852 On July ., 1856 1t was re-
need and further extended for period o. seven years
or this patent. the complainant Is the assignee
ami he brings this suit against the company
fr tie Use by of the carrake IN ques
tton from August g. 1869. TO the expiration Of the
rtent in 1873 pray for account o: the profits
md for corresponding damages The points OF the DE-
fence SET up blythe rail company are hrSt that ef
the expiration OF patent court OF equity mas no JH
rsdctii ID TO entertain O merely FOR an account ana
h recovery OF the profits which have accrued to the In
frDer durng existence Of such patent-the remedy
en- that case being at law for damages and second that
even II in certain such Jurisdiction exists the
reseut case does fail within IT, The comp ahant on
t other hand maintains that IN cases Involving the en-
fooenent Of rights of pateutees resort may be had
"a matter Of right court OF equity for the mere
,urr,se OF es ablishlug infringement and ascertain
aud recovering the profits OF the tnfruger upon fhc
nacnendent equitable ground that the latter Il for that
rrnss trustee Of his gains for the use Of the true
owner OF the patent and Is liable 10 account as such
Jns,ioe Matthews, In delivering the opinion reviews
IN. course and Of judicial decision with 70
ra 70 these questions aud comes TO the Following con-
o,,s,,ns. First That bu In equity for naked ac-
coIt prohts aud damages against an ihtrlh-er 81
patent cannot be sustained tnat stSh Itl.i % ulaIy
J. Incidental 10 eon' otLeI e4I. va. ,, -. -. - ~
Ijch secures the patentce is standing IN court mat
te 10 The patenee the enjoyment Of his specific right
b Injunction against continuance OF the Infringement
~ Wv o. tliunctions where the title Of the complain
ant Il equitable merely, or equltDe lHtefloslllon
a. necessary on account OF tupelmeut5 which prevent
a resort 10 remedies purely legal ana slcI an equity
NAV arise out Of and nhere IN the nature OF the account
itsr' sprugtng from special and peculiar circumstance
it "a, r,n+er III remedy In a legal tribunal difficult
kadeauaie aud Incomplete ana such cannot be
more exactly, each must rest upon IT'S own par
ticusr circumstances furnishing clear and satisc
tory ground OF exception from the general rule.
Fecond That It not appear from the atgatons OF
bill in the present case mat tIere are any cIcu
stances which would render act 81 law for the rec6v
cry u damages Inadequate remedy for the wrongs
complained or ana a. no grouhq Tor eqtaDle Iti,tI
presented 70 T. the opinion OF this Court that the Crcut
Court dd not In Diminishing tho bill It's decree Is
decision was rendered by the Court IN the case Of
nrcticut MuIIlaI III. Insurance Company. This
sr't brought by the widow OF Adophe Bennecke re-
s9sS The Company aPon the lie Of her hus6and The
company Inaiutin that the policy was forfeited by the
bo - the insured man, IN going without the companys
T., tbs 0oi namely TO the city Of New-O Orleans
go b I'D OF Teilo fever The plainn in error ad
mis- that no permit TO 20 south OF the hirysecond
parllel Of ltltude ever Issued by the company
unnn this policy, but maintains that application was
Iaie for such permit the duly authorized agent Of
m couauy that the received and roccptcd for
fhe extra rate of premium required upon such permits
sDd that biz not in 20 dong bound the company, not
the that the Insured man actually
dead before such application FOR q permit was made
,a,- fact az the time not known.
opinion Of this Court the plann IN error c1uld
TO- recover upon this policy even the company Itself
Instead OF its agent hal waived the fOrc and Issued
fhe permit when IL asked for wal er OF stipu
laion must. be eectual not only be
mode tenuOnay, but with knowledge II the circum-
ttances The judgment Of the Court below affirmed
Opinion by Justice Woods.
u opinion was delivered for the Court by Justice
Miller Ia the Of the United states appel ant against
chard W. Tyler. Appeal from The court or Claims.
Tie question presented by this Is whether the ap
ncre who on December -, 1870 retired from the
rrnv OF the United states with the rank OF Captain
sccoot OF wounds received IN battle, Is entitled 70 the
ben+0 OF the statute which increases the pay OF officers
by 10 per cent period OF i've years service
The Judgment Of the Court OF Claims Ia alrIned.
In he case James GreeuwOOdap pollaLt Eganst me
Union Freight Railroad Company, appeal from tie
Circuit Court OF tie United states for the District Of
Massachusetts. the decree OF the Circuit Court Is
arirTI.d Opn on BY Justice Miller
The case Of the United states, appellant, against
William q Temple Decided TINS suit brought
BY Commodore Temple the Court OF Claims 10 recover
mileage al tie OF cents per mile Tor the dls-
tance travelled BY him while Government business in
FOREIGN waters aud IA foreign ships JUdgDent OF tho
Court OF Claims in favor Of Comm5dSre Temple B
affirmed. Opinion by Justice Woods