406 FEDERAL REPORTBR. �Allia & Co. pending the continuing of the arrangement between them and Downton, were put into the mill under that contract which had been made by Downton, representing Allis & Co. as well as himself. After these had been put in, Allis & Co. failed, and proceedings in bankruptcy were commenced against them. That, Downton seemed to have conceived, had the effect to end these three contracts between himself and Allis & Co., and, at all events, from that time all busi- ness relations or connections between them ceased, as it is claimed. Allis & Co. were not adjudged bankrupts. They made an agreement or composition with their creditors, and proceeded in business. So that any rights they had under that contract they still have, Thus, the bankruptcy, by reason of ite termination in this manner, ceases to be material in ascertaining the relations of the parties. As to the special point now under consideration, we assume that the proofs show that Yaeger & Co. had notice of the bankruptcy, and that Down- ton claimed that he had terminated this arrangement, and that Downton insisted that the whole contract between himself and Allis & Co. was at an end, and that all rights thereunder had reverted to him. After this, and after the alleged notice of the character I have described, Allis & Co., claiming that the contract was still in force and that they were the assignees of all rights of Downton, continued to manufacture these rolls, and the Yaeger Milling Company put in several other sets of rolls in their mill. �Now, this is a bill by Downton, as the holder of the process patent, to which I have adverted, against the Yaeger Milling Company for mfringement of bis rights under that patent in the use of these rolls,. under the circumstances I have stated. This is an outline of the case. �Now, one question, on which we ordered an argument, is whether, under these circumstances, whatever may be Downton's rights as between himself and the rest of mankind, or as between himself and Allis & Co., who are not parties on the record in this suit, as Mr. Downton bas never had judicial settlement or adjustment of his rights in a direct proceeding with Allis & Co. — whatever might be the rights of Mr. Downton as against anybody else — the question is whether he was not equitably estopped, as against Yaeger & Co., from insisting that they infringed his patent, by reason of the circum- stances I have stated. The counsel have been heard on that, and we agree (Judge Treat and myself) that so far as the two rolls are concerned that were put in by Downton himself during the pendency of his relations with Allis & Co., and for which. they paid Allis & Co.,. ��� �
