NATIONAL MANUF'q CO. V. MEYEES. 355 �Bhould aver that said inventions are capable of conjoint as ■well as separate use, and are in fact so used by defendant. Nellis V. Lanahan, 6 Fisher, 286. �In the bill under consideration the letters patent are prop- erly joined, and, in fact, constitute one and the same cause of action. �The demnrrer is, therefore, overruled. �Baxteb, g. J., concurred. �Note. Pleaaants v. &lasacock, 1 Smedea & Marsh. Ch. (17 Oh. R. Miss.) 17 ; 'Dick v. Dick, 1 Hogan, (Rolls Court, Ireland,) 290 ; ScUvedge v. Bffde, 5 Maddtix, 138 ; Davoue v. Fanning, 4 John. Ch. 199 ; Varick v. Smith, 5 Paige, 160; Mitford's Eq. PI. § 181, note: Hayee v. Dayton, (8. D. N. T., Nov., 1880, Blatchford, J.,) 18 O. G. 1406. ���National Manuf'g Co. v. Meyers.* {Circuit Court, S. D. OTito. May 26, 1881.) �1. Patents — Licensee — Defences — Denyinq Validitt of Patent — �estopfel. �In a suit in equity, for an account of profits and damages, and for an injunction for infringement of a patent, a licensee is not estopped f rom denying the validlty of the patent. �2. Same. �In such suit the respondent may answer that he was acting under a license, and unless the recitals or covenants of the instrument for- hid, he may also deny the validity of the patent ; such defences are not inconsisteut. �In Equity. Bill for infringement of patent. Motion to withdraw replication. �D. Theto Wright and William B. Burnet, for complainants. �James Moore, contra. �Swing, D. J. The bill alleges that on the twentieth day of June, 1874, there was issued to Jacob H. Burtis letters patent for new and useful improvements in fly-traps, of which he was the original and first inventor. �*Reported by ii-dssrs. Florien Glauque and J. C. Harper, of the Cincin- nati bar. ��� �
