340 rSCBBAli BEFOBTBB. �as was stated wlien this cause was decided on the former hearing, that the pleader doea not appear to have framed hia bill witb that aspect in mind ; but what was said then was not said upon examination and deliberation, as a full dispo- sition of the question, but only in passing, as illustrating the other question then being considered, so the question is open now whether the bUl is sufficient to cover that claim. �Afl to that the bill sets forth the infringement by the defendant while the patent was owned by Miss Ingalls, and sets forth in hœc verba the assignment from her to the plaintiflf of the patent; also of "ail the right, interest and claim for and to the past use of said invention and improvements under the said letters patent;" and besides praying for an injunction and for an increase of damages, "in addition to the profits and gains to be accounted for by the defendant," has a prayer for "such other and further relief as shall be agreeable to equity." This, meagerly, it is true, but after ail substantially, sets forth the claim and assignment, and a prayer for relief, as applicable to that as to the other part of the case. Perhaps there should be a special prayer for an account as to either aspect, but if one is required it is quite strongly hinted at if not very aptly inserted. The proof of the assignment consists of the instrument set forth, and that eeems to be amply sufficient to cover this claim. The plain- tifF is entitled to recover for the whole time, if any one is, as the case now stands, and it appeara that he can now recover it in this suit, if anywhere, without doing violence to any of the settled rules of pleading. �The other is much the more impoi-tant question. What- ever question there might be if the subject was new, it now seems to be settled that savings in cost by infringement of a patent may be recovered as profits. Cawood Patent, 94 U. S. 696; ElizabethY. Pavement Co. 97 U. S. 126. The de- fendant saved the sum named by using the patented in- vention. It is said that the master erred, because the de- fendant might bave used another form of stamp, which would not bava bcen an infringement, and that the saving by nsjng the patented invention, inetead of that, would bave ����
