HAMMBRSCHLAO V. OAERBTT. ���43? ���the Moody tree is not the Still tree, then there is no infringement of plaintiffs' invention and they cannbt complain. �The demarrer to their petitien on this point is sustained, as also to
- \ie prayer. The demurrer to the prayer is also well taken.
���HAMMBESOHLio. V. Gabrbtt and otherB.* (Circuit Court, E. i>. Pennsyhania. July 1, 1881.) �1. Patent— Dnipoemitt ov Decisioh— Wkight to bb GivaN to Pbbvioub Db- �CI8ION IN Othbr Circuit. �A proper rejgard ifor uniformity of decision requires that where one circuit court has, after a fnll discussion ol the eyidencb, sustained a patent, another circuit court should, unless plain mistake be shown, follow such decision in a suit upon the same patent in which the same evidence is relied on. �2. Same— Improvement in Waxino Paper — Injunction. �Reissued patent No. 8,460, for improvement in waxing paper, sustained, and injunction against infringement granted, on final hearing ; following a decision in HammerscMag v. Scamoni, 7 Fbd. Rep. 584, rendered upon a motion for a preliminary injunetion. �In Equity. Hearing on bill, answer and proof s. �Bill for injunction to restrain the infringement of ieissfled letters patent No . 8,460, for improvement , in waxing paper. Defendants denied the novelty of the patent and also denied the infringement. It appeared by the proofs that, in a suit brought in the United States circuit court for the southern district of New York by the; same com- plainant against different defendants, to restrain an infringement of the same patent, the court had, upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, delivered an opinion in which, after a full consideration of the merits, and of the evidence respecting the state pf the art and prior invention relied on in this suit, the complainant's patent was sustained : and the preliminary injunetion granted. See report of case, HammerscMag v. Scamoni, 7 Fed. Kbp. 584. �Fro^t e Coe and John K. Valentine, for cdmplainant. �Collier e Bell, for respondent. �Butler, D. J. The circuit court for the southern diatrict of New York decided the plaintiff's patent to he valid in Hamirierschlag y. Scamoni, and construed its several claims. The evidence, respecting the state of the art* and prior invention, now relied upon by the �♦Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of tho Philadelphia bar!, ��� �
