724 FEDERAL REPORTER. �Gregory, 1 C. E. G. 274; Scott v. Lalor'sEx'rs, 3 G. E. G. 301; Leddell v. Starr, e C. E. G. 169; Allen v. RoU, 10 C. E. G. 164; Pattison v. Hull, 9 Cow. 747; Morgan v. Tipton, 3 McL. 344; Carnochan v. Christie, 11 Wheat. 446. But there are excep- tions to this rule in the more modern practice; as, for example, in the case of a suit for specifie performance. The supreme court of the United States, in Brad/ord v. The Union Bank of Tenn. 13 How. 57, adopted the practice first suggested by Sir William Grant, master of the rolls, in Staplyton v. Scott, 13 Ves. 425, and sanctioned by Lord Eldon in Fife v. Glay- ton, Id, 546, and dispensed with a cross-bill and granted relief to the defendant, on his answer to a bill for the spe- cifie performance of a eontract, wherein an agreement was set up dififering iu many particulars from the one on which the bill of eomplaint was founded. The court regarded' such a departure from the eatablished practice justifiable, "as most convenient and expeditions in settling definitely the rights of the parties, and for the sake of saving further litigation and expense." �It is quite clear, from the reasoning of the court in the opinion deciding the case, that if the'sanie lea^rned tribunal should be called upon to construis"' the section under consid- eration, it would have no diffioulty in finding in its provis- ions ample authority for the courts to give affirmative relief to a defendant, on an answer which denies validity to the complainant's iiiterfering patent. But, whether this be so or not, ail "the courts which have had occasion to construe the section have assumed or decided that tbey;had jurisdiction over ail the interfering patents, upon a bill filed, and that on proper issues formed by the pleadings, without the interven- tion of a cross-bill, affirmative relief could be grauted to either of the parties entitled to it, by declaring one or the other, or ail, of the patents void or valid. �The case of The Gold <& Silver Ore Separating Co. v. The United States Disintegrating Ore Co. 6 Blatchf. 307, invoked the jurisdiction of the court, under the sixteenth section of the act of July 4, 1836, and was heard by Judge Blatchford, on bill and answer. The bili alleged that on the eigbth of ��� �
