state, that court cannot take cognizance of such a cause. [Livingston et al. v. Vaningen et al., 4 Hall's Am. Law Journ., 56.

77. The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is conclusive as to the laws and facts arising under an application for a patent, unless it be impeached for fraud, or connivance between him and the patentee, or unless his excess of authority be manifest on the face of the papers. [Allen v. Blunt, 3 Story, 740.

78. An assignee of a part of a patent right cannot maintain an action on the case for the violation of the patent. [Tyler et al. v. Tuel, 6 Cranch, 324.

79. Action for an alleged violation of a patent for an improvement in guns and fire arms. [See Shaw v. Cooper, 7 Peters, 202.

80. The 14th and 15th sections of the act of 1836, ch. 357, prescribe the rules which must govern on the trial of actions for the violations of patent rights, and these sections are operative so far as they are applicable, notwithstanding the patent may have been granted before the passage of the act of 1836. [M'Clurg et al. v. Kingsland et al., 1 Howard, 202.

81. An assignee of the exclusive right to use ten machines within the city of Louisville, for ten miles round, may join his assignor with him in a suit for a violation of the patent right, under the circumstances of this case. [Woodworth v. Wilson, 4 Howard, 712.

82. A plaintiff, therefore, who claims under an assignment from the administrator, can maintain a suit against a person who claims under the covenant. [Wilson v. Rosseau, 4 Howard, 646.

83. There is no act that requires the jurat to be dated at all; and the supplementary provision of the 6th section of the act of 1837, that "the applicant shall be held to furnish duplicate drawings," though directory in its terms, is not a condition; and it has obvious reference, in point of time, to the issuing of the patent, and not to the filing of the petition for it. [French et al. v. Rogers et al., Grier and Kane, Jj., C. C. Penn'a., November, 1851.

84. If Mr. Morse's patent is invalid on this ground, more than half the modern patents for mechanical inventions must probably fall with it. [Ibid.

85. The grant of a patent at the Patent Office is not of itself, or in virtue of section 7th of the act of July 4, 1836, a bar to an interlocutory injunction in favour of a person claiming to be a prior patentee of the same thing, such person not having received notice at the Patent Office to appear and be heard, and the court, on a hearing before it, being well satisfied that the last patent is an interference with the one granted before. [Wilson v. Barnum, 3 Wallace, (in press.)

86. The district judge, sitting for the Circuit Court, and being himself well satisfied of an infringement although, of numerous experts examined, a majority thought differently from him.

on that point-may grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain the use of a patented machine as an infringement of a prior one, the machine last patented not having been granted, after notice. from the Patent Office to the complainant, to appear and be heard. [Ibid.

87. Where the district judge, sitting for the Circuit Court, and being satisfied of an infringement, had granted an interlocutory injunction till trial, to restrain the use of a machine, and the president judge, after hearing the evidence before the jury on a trial, differed from his brother, who, after hearing the same evidence, still retained his former opinion, and the jury could find no verdict; the full court, in its subsequent action on the injunction, need not consider itself either as bound or as unable to dissolve it; but the action upon it may be modified, the modification being largely regulated by what probably would have been the original action of a full court. [Ibid.

V. Evidence in Actions for Violations of Patent Rights.

1. Though the competency of an official letter from the Commissioner of the Patent Office, as evidence, may be questionable, yet if subsequent evidence in the progress of the case rendered it unnecessary to prove the fact for which it was offered, a new trial will not be granted on account of the admission of such letter. [Allen v. Blunt, C. C. Mass., Woodbury, J., Nov., 1846.

2. Nor where parol evidence of the contents of

a letter was rejected, because no satisfactory proof had been furnished of the loss of the letter, or that it had come to the possession of the opposite party. [Ibid.

3. In a question of fact, addressed to the court, to lay the foundation of secondary evidence, of a written paper, a letter will not be presumed to have been received, from the fact that it was put into the post-office, if no answer was returned, and the party to whom it was addressed makes affidavit that it never came to hand. [Ibid.

4. A former verdict between the parties, on an issue out of chancery, and on a different matter, cannot be admitted as evidence. [Ibid.

5. A deposition should not be taken during the session of the court at which the case is to be tried, except by its order of court, or the consent of parties, or taken merely de bene esse in case of death or absence abroad. [Ibid.

6. Where counsel have acted publicly in former trials of a like cause between the parties, and are still employed, though not one of the counsel whose names appear on the record, if living within one hundred miles of the place where the deposition was taken, and the party and the other counsel do not, he ought to be notified. [Ibid.

7. A renewal of a patent by a commissioner, with an amended specification, is to be presumed to have been made legally; but the presumption may be rebutted by evidence submitted to a jury, if requested. [Ibid.

8. Where the defendant, in a prima facie case against him, undertakes to show that an invention has been known and used, &c., he must turn the scale of evidence in his favour. [Ibid.

9. In an action for fraud, in the sale of a patent, on the ground that A. had a prior patent for the same invention, the defendant offered in evidence a written agreement with A., for a valuable consideration, that neither A. nor his heirs would thereafter sue or disturb the defendant for a breach of A.'s patented right, but that the defendant, without molestation, might freely act under his patent right, as if A.'s had never existed-it was held that this agreement gave to the defendant no right to transfer, and could not be admitted in evidence. [Bull v. Pratt, 1 Conn., 342.

10. In an action on the case for fraud, in the sale of a patent right, the plaintiff proved that a certain patent had been granted previously to a third person, and then offered parol evidence to show that the defendant's patent was for the same invention: held that the evidence was admissible. [Ibid.

11. Under the 6th section of the patent law of February 21, 1793, ch. 156, the defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice that he would prove at the trial that the machine, for the use of which, without license, the suit was brought, had been used previous to the alleged invention of the plaintiff, at several places which were specified in the notice, or some of them, "and also at sundry