816 csdbbàl bepobter. �Tbere must be a decree declaring the Baumann patent invalid, as to its first claim, in the whole of the United States, as respects the defendant and ail persons who shall derive title under it, to or in said patent subseq^aently to the entry of such decree, with oosts. ���United States & Fokeign Salamandbb Fbltiko Co. v. �AsBESTos Felting Co.* �(Or cuit Court, 8. B. New York. September 1, 1880.) �George E. Betton, for plaintiflF. �Johnathan Marshall, for defendant. �Blatchfobd, g. J. Thia suit is brought for the infringe- ment of patent No. 114,711, granted to the plaintiff on the invention of John Biley, May 9, 1871. The bill sets up that the plaintiff brought a suit at law for the infringement of that patent in the Massachusetts district against the Merri- mack Manufacturing Company; that the material used by the defendant in that suit was supplied and put on by the agents of the defendant in thia suit, and is the same as that made and used by the defendant in this suit ; that the defend- ant in this suit defended that suit, its president being person- ally present at the trial and giving directions with regard to the same; that the answer in that suit set up as a defence a patent granted to one Baumann, No. 100,354, March 1, 1870 ; that the judgment of the court was in favor of the plaintiff, and that the defendant is bound by said decision. �The answer in this suit does not deny that the defendant in this suit defended the Massaehusets suit, but avers that the Baumann patent was not introduced in evidence in the Massaehusets suit. The plaintiff put in evidence in the suit the record of the Massachusetts suit, under an objection of the defendant that it was incompetent. It appears by the �«See ante, 813 ����
