LOCOMOTIVE 8AFKTT TBUCK CO. V. P. E. CO. 677 �a decree for a diseharge," It intercepta the progress of such proceedings, and supersedes the judioial sçrutiny which any creditor may promote touching any of the matters specified as grounds of objections to a diseharge. It is a decisive " stage " of the proceedings ; and if the effort thus to arrest them is made with the coUusive aid of creditors, why is not the improper influence as much within the meaning of the law as if it had been employed to advance them? There is no warrant in the words or reason of the law for such distinc- tion. �I am, therefore, of opinion that the matters alleged in tho objection to the discharge of the bankrupts are referable to a "stage in the bankruptcy proceedings" within the meaning of the twenty-ninth section of the bankrupt act, and that said ob- jection veas erroneously dismissed; and it is now ordered that the order of the district court dismissing said objection be reversed, and that the same be reinstated, to the end that the facts specified therein may be inquired into and determined according to law. ���The Locomotive Safett Tbuok Company v. The Pbnnstl- �VANIA RaILEOAD OomPANY.* {Circuit Court, E. D- Pennsylvania. June 8, 1880. �PATBNT — IlWBINaBMBNT — PROFITS — WHBN NOT EECOVERABLE — MeAS- �UBE OF Damages whkn no Pbofits are shown. — Whea a patentee cannot show an atsolute advantage in the use of his patent over results which could be reached by other processes in common and unrestricted use, he cannot recover anything from an infringer as profits, although he may exact such damages as will compensate him for the in jury caused by the infringement. Bame— Mbthod of ascertaining Profits—Compahison of Advantages. In determining whether profits have been realized by the infringer the comparison of advantages should be made, not between the patentee'» invention and the process previously used by the infringer, but between the patentee's invention and such other known process then in unre- stricted use as would best accomplish the same resuit. �•lieported by Franls P. Prichard, Egq., of the Philadelphia Bar, ����
