BECOMBE V. CAMPEELIi. 357 �his property. Any making for use during the term was taking from him what belonged to him. To permit any others to make or produce such machines during the term, and hold them till the expiration and then use them freely, as if made after, would be to permit them to make oiï with so much of his property that the lawhad guaranteed to him. To restrainthe use after the term, without his consent, gives nothing to him that he was not entitled to, and takes nothing from them that they had any right to. It gives him no right acquired beyond his term, and merely secures to him the full right he was entitled to during the term. The law would be open to reproach if it would not allow a court of equity, by its usual methods, in a case properly before it to accomplish a resuit so just. The argument upon this motion bas confirmed rather thaa shaken the views expressed before upon this'subject. Motion denied. ���Secombe, Administrator, v. Campbell and others. {CweuU Court, 8. D. New York. May 1, 1880.) �Patent — Pdbchaber op mat belt on Record Title. — So long as ho acts in good faith, the purchaser of a patent has a right to rely upoa the apparent record title, the same as in the case of real estate. �Same— BoNA FroB Pubchabeb— Inbufficient Flha.— A plea by a defend- ant who claims the rightsof a bonafide purchaser of a patent, which al- leges that he purchased for a "good and valuable consideration," is insufflcient, but the consideration should be set forth in amount, and in traversable fonn, so that plaintifl may traverse it if he choose, and tha court sec that it was adequately valuable. �In Equity. �David A. Secombe, for complainant. �Qeo. H. William and Marciis P. Norton, for defendants. �Wheeler, D. J. This bill is brought upon re-issued letters patent, division A, No. 4,143, to Helen M. Ingalls, assignee of Marcus P. Norton, dated October 4, 1870, for an improve- ment in post-ofiBce postmarking and postage cancelling Btamps, and alleges that she assigned this, with other pat- ����
