Court Opinion

ID: 8637712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:48:00.624738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:59.166309
License: Public Domain

NELSON, Circuit Justice.
The first objection to the report is, that an account of the profits of the defendants, as damages, has been taken for a period subsequent to the time of the filing of the bill, whereas it is claimed that it should have been limited to the time of the commencement of the suit. The objection is not well taken. The practice in such cases, in equity, is to take the account down to the time of the hearing before the master, if the infringement continues to that period, thereby preventing the necessity and expense of a new suit; and I can perceive no well-founded objection to this practice. The right as between the parties to the litigation, in respect to the use of the patent, has been determined, • leaving in dispute no question but the damages. If a second suit were brought, the decree in the first would be conclusive of the right, and the only question open would be that of damages; and, as to that question, the same defence may be made on taking the account for a time subsequent to the commencement of the suit, which could be made in case a new suit were instituted. It is common, in the case of a bill filed for an infringement, and a motion made for a preliminary injunction, where the question of infringement is not manifest, and enjoining the defendant would produce serious hardship or derangement of his business, to withhold the injunction on the defendant’s keeping an account, or giving security for the damages accruing, which assumes the right of the plaintiff to recover damages for the alleged infringement subsequently to the commencement of the suit.
Another objection is, that the account should have been taken for the time during which all the defendants were jointly concerned in the infringement. A portion of the account taken accrued after Lowber left the concern, and that portion has been reported against the remaining parties, Leroy and Smith. I perceive no difficulty in the case, as the liability of the defendants may be apportioned in making up the decree. No decree should be entered against Lowber for profits which accrued after he withdrew from the concern.
The master arrived at the profits by taking the difference between the average price of pig-lead during the period covered by the accounting and the average price of lead-pipe during the same period, such difference being the value added to the lead by its manufacture into pipe. From that difference he deducted the cost of manufacturing the lead into the pipe, and the remainder he called the profits made by the defendants upon the manufacture, and to the sum thus ascertained he added interest to the date of his report. I concur with the report of the master as to the extent of the profits, and I think that- the interest was properly chargeable.
Exceptions overruled.