S6e FEDERAL EPPOSTEB. ■ �whole bill ? Attomey General v. St. John s College, 7 Sim. 241 ; Story's Eq. PI. 630, 540 ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. 334-346, notes 1 and 2. Thc facts in this case present no complication. �Tbe bill shows that re-issues Nos. 8,891 and 8,896 are for improvements in fire alarms, and that the complainant bas the iright, under re-issue 4,588, of constructing apparatus for are alarms and the transmission of municipal intelligence, and alleges that the defendant uses each of these inventions in one machine — uses them all in the same machine. It is plain that the use of all these inventions together, to consti- tuterA machine, is the cause of . action setout in the bill; the construction of a fire alarm,. such as defendant now uses, being the injury. complained of and against which an injnnc- tion is prayed. Discovery is asked, not of how many ma-^ chipes eontaining separately the inventions in the several patents mentioned, but how many machines eontaining all these inventions used together to construct the machine, have beei^ made. �A single defence — we do not make such a machine — ^meets the whole bill in its allegations and prayer founded on the allegations, �The mere setting out of more than one letters patent in a bill does not of itself render the bill multifarious. Case v. Redfield, 4 McLean, 526; Nourse v. Allen, 4 Blatchf. 376. �And it may be said generally that a demurrer for multifa^ riousness will not lie to a bill founded on several letters pat- ent, where all the inventions are set out as constituting one cause of action, and the prayer relates singly, as to discovery and remedy, to a machine constructed according to and eon- taining all said inventions. �Where the discovery is prayed for under special interroga- tories as to each letter patent in a manner so particular as to each invention that it is evident on the face of the bill that the relief sought is for infringement of each afid every inven- tion, and not for an injury arising from the making and using one machine constructed according to such letters patent, the bill is demurrable. �To escape the objection of multifariousness such a bill ��� �
