672 FEDEfiAIi BEPOfiTKB. �flfter the date specifled in the notice the defendant had continued to manufac- ture and sell the patented articles in said state as before, but had failed and refused to pay any royalty ; and where the prayers of the bill were that the de- fendant might be required to answer thereto ; that said license might be declared null and void ; for damages, and for general relief, — hdd, that the bill suffl- ciently set forth facts entitling the complainant to relief in a court of equity. �In Equity, Demurrer to bill. The plaintiflf, by bis bill, alleges — �" That heretofore, to-wit, on the firat day of January, A. D. 1880, your ora- tor, by virtue of mesne aasignments duly recorded in the patent-office of the United States, became and now is the sole owner of all right, title, and inter- est in and to certain letters patent of the United States, within and for the state of Missouri, on an improved lanteru ; that on the tenth day of January, 1880, he lieensed the defendants to manufacture such lanterns in St. Louis and sell them throughout the United States; that defendants agreed to sell the lanterns manufactured by him under said license at certain agreed priees, and to pay a specifie royalty to the complainant; that the license was upon condition that if defendants should f all to keep and perform any of the agree- ments therein contained for 10 days after notice in writing specifying said default, or should neglect or refuse to make returns, or to make payments for 20 days after the tiines therefor specifled, the license should become null and void, and all rights to use any of said iraprovements should be forfeited, and the complainant might treat the defendants as infringers for any manufac- ture or sale of said improvements after said forfeiture; that the defendants sold said improved lanterns in said state for less than the priees agreed upon, and failed to pay the agreed royalty at the times specifled in said license ; that on the twenty-seventh day of July, 1880, the complainant caused the defend- ants to be notifled that after the twentieth day of August, 1880, said license would be considered null and void by the complainant, by reason of the de- fendants having failed to comply with its terras; that since August 20, 1880, defendant has continued to manufacture said improved lanterns in the state of Missouri, and to sell them as before, but has failed and refused to pay any royalty to the complainant ; and that in consequence of the defendants having violated the said agreement, and continued to manufacture and vend said lan- terns as aforesaid, the complainant has been damaged in the sum of $4,000." �The prayer of the bill is as follows, viz : �" That the said Ferdinand Meyrose and Bernard Meyrose [the defendants] may be required to make full and direct answer to the same, but not under oath, an answer under oath being hereby expressly waived, and tljat the said agreement and contract between your orator and said defendants, hereinbefore set forth, may be by this honorable court declared null and void, and that said agreement and contract may be delivered up to be cancelled; that all rights to use any of the inventions and improvements in said agreement and contract granted to said defendants may be forfeited; that said defendants may be decreed to pay to your orator the sum of $4,000 damages for their wrougful ��� �
