500 FEDERAL REPORTER. �that, after what passed between Dare and Fosburgh on the second of April, even if it be taken as Fosburgh states it, it was the duty of Fosburgh to apply to Dare for an account and a payment, and that he had no right to declare the agreement void, and to proceed to make the license to Boyls- ton and Butler without the assent of Dare. As he did not apply to Dare, and as Dare made a complete tender to him before he made the license to Boylston and Butler, it must be held that Dare lost none of his rights, and that the defend- ant acquired no rights under the patent, he having taken with notice of the agreement to Dare, which notice was notice of ail he might have learned by inquiry of Dare. �The defendant takes the point that the invention patented isnot useful. There is sufficient utility in it to support a patent. Ail that the evidence amounts to is that the ai-ticle is better with an added improvement. Moreover, no such defence is set up in the answer. �There must be a decree for the plaintiff for a perpetuai injunctiou, and an accounts of proats and damages, with costs. ���Waring V. Johnson. �{Circuit Court, S. B. New York. Jfebruaiy 4, 1881.) Bk-Issub No. 8,199 — Improvement in Pocket Chbck-Books— Nov- �ELTY. �Re-issued letters patent No. 8,199, for an " improvement in pocket check-books," contained, i'raier aKœ, the following claim: "(1) The combination in a check-book of checks and stub pieces of substan- tially the same size, so united that two checks lie between every two stub pieces, substantially as specifled and set forth." Rdd, that such claim was not void for want of novelty, �Same— Patent No. 191,436— Impeovemknt ni Bank Check-Books— Infeingement. �Rad, further, that such daim was infringed by bank check-books made in accordance with the description and drawings in patent No. 191,436, for an "improvement in bank check-books." — [Ed. ��� �
