EMIGH V. B. & 0. R. CO. 283 fit therefrom, there still remains the clear fact that the plain- tiff, even if its assignment covered the name as a trade-mark, (which is very doubtful), is seeking to create a monopoly for the practical extension- of a patent beyond its legal term. The plaintiff bas established no such right, nor bas the de- fendant consequently violated any of plaintiff's rights. The bill will, therefore, be dismissed at plaintiff's eosts Emigh V. B. & 0. E. Co. Stevens V. Same. Btevens, use of Emigh, v. Same. {Circuit Court, D. Maryland. March 17, 1881.) 1. iNKIilNGEMEST DP PaTKKT — EXCEPIIOKS TO MASTER'S RePORT. Tbe Stevens patent for improvement in railroad-car brakes, which expired in 1872, liaving been held valid, upon reference to a master he reported that the advantages derived by the defendant from its use amounted to $30 per car per year, and that flnding that during the latter years of the existence of the patent there was an established license fee of $25 per car per year, he assessed the complainant's dam- ages at that rate from the time the license fee was established. Hdd, that the master's findings, as to both profits and damages, were war- ranted by the testimony, but that, as it was difflcult to compute with exactness the money value of the advantages accruing to the defend- ant from the use of the patent, and as there was conflict of testimony on that subject, the court would accept the license fee as the basis of compensation least liltely to do injustice, and would decree as for profits at that rate, without mterest. In Equity. Exceptions to Master's Report. Before Bond and MoERis, JJ. George Harding and Albert H. Walker, for complainants. John H. B. Latrobe and Andrew McCallum, for defendant. Morris, D. J. These are three suits in equity against the Baltimore & Ohio Eailroad Company for infringement of the patent, dated the twenty-fifth of November, 1851,granted to Francis A. Stevens for an improvement in railroad-car
