348 FEDERAL EBPOBTEB, �ants, and, among other things, sold these five machines. It is testified that they were not supposed to be of any value, and they were not used by the defendants, but remained in their lumber-room, as I understand, until after this suit was brought. Forehand swears that he notified the defendants' agent, who conducted the negotiation on their part, that he doubted whether he had any right to sell them these ave machines. �It seems, then, that the defendants, though they bought the five machines of persons who themselves had a right to use them, obtained no such right. This disposes of the nice point of law as to the measure of damages, in the use of five new machines, by a person who had a right to use five old ones ; as well as of the deduction of about $4,000, which the master reported as an alternative finding, if it should be held that no profits made by the use of the five machines themselves were to be included in the decree. �The ingenions argument, from the dates and contents of written papers, to prove that the commissioner of patents must have been deceived and defrauded concerning the state of the title when he granted the extension, needs the support of actual evidence of fraud. �I have considered all the other points presented, but do not find it necessary to refer to them in detail. I do not find that either the original decree or the master's report has been successfully assailed, and I affirm the finding of profits as assessed at $40,367.26. �Decree for the comnlainants. ��� �
