STATE OF CONNECTICUT, COUNTY OF HARTFORD, 88. On this third day of September, 1883, before me personally appeared Charles Clark, and made oath that he has read the above plea, and knows the contents thereof, and that it is not interposed for delay, and that it is true in point of fact. The defendant, for answer to the bill of complaint of the complainant, answering, says: The defendant admits, that it is a corporation created and existing in due form of law in the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island. The defendant denies, on information and belief, that Samuel Sinclair was the true, original, and first inventor of the apparatus covered by the original letters patent mentioned in said bill; and the defendant says, on information and belief, that said apparatus was not an invention when produced by said Samuel Sinclair; and that it was not novel at that time, and that an apparatus substantially identical with it in character was previously patented in letters patent of the United States, granted to Mason Montgomery, May 16, 1856; and that another like apparatus was previously described on page 777 of a certain printed book entitled "The Practical Railroad Carriage Builder," published in London, England, in the year 1858, by William Wright, of Paternoster Row: and that still another like apparatus was previously known and used by Nathan Norris, of Rochester New York, on the New York Central Railroad, in said Rochester, and elsewhere on said railroad, in the State of New York, in the year 1859. And the defendant further says, on information and belief, that said Samuel Sinclair actually abandoned his said alleged invention, before he made any application for letters patent therefor. And the defendant further says, on information and belief, that the said alleged invention was in public use more than two years before said Samuel Sinclair made any application for letters patent thereon. And the defendant further says, that it has no knowledge whether the said Samuel Sinclair ever executed and delivered any instrument of assignment to Rufus Russell, purporting to convey the entire right, title, and interest in said alleged invention. And the defendant further says, that it has no knowledge whether any original letters patent for said alleged invention, were ever issued and delivered to said Rufus Russell. And the defendant denies, on information and belief, that any such letters patent were inoperative by reason of an insufficient specification; and that any such inoperativeness arose from inadvertence, and without fraudulent or deceptive intention. The defendant further says, that it has no knowledge whether said Rufus Russell ever surrendered any such letters patent, or whether the Commissioner of Patents ever caused any reissue letters patent to be issued to said Russell for the unexpired part of the term of any such original letters patent. And the defendant further says, on information and belief, that the alleged reissue letters patent mentioned in the com plainant's bill, are not for the same invention as the alleged original letters patent upon the surrender of which they are alleged in said bill to have been issued. And the defendant further says, that it has no knowledge whether, through mistake, and without any fraudulent intention, the said Samuel Sinclair, in his application for said alleged original letters patent, claimed to be the true, original, and first inventor of a certain part of the said apparatus of which he was not the first inventor; or whether the said Rufus Russell, without unreasonable delay, entered in the Patent Office, before the commencement of this suit, a disclaimer in writing of any such part. And the defendant further says, that it has no knowledge whether the said Rufus Russell ever executed and delivered any instrument of grant to the complainant, purporting to convey the entire right, title, and interest in and to the then unexpired portion of the term of said alleged reissue letters patent, in and throughout the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island. And the defendant further says, on information and belief, that before July 16, 1876, letters patent of the empire of France were granted, on said apparatus, to said Samuel Sinclair, for fourteen years from August 1, 1869. And the defendant denies, on information and belief, that it ever made or used, or caused to be made or used, any specimen of any apparatus covered by said reissue letters patent; and likewise denies that it ever derived any profit from any such making or using; and likewise denies that the defendant ever incurred any damage on account of any such transactions committed or caused to be committed by the defendant. The defendant further says, that it has no knowledge whether the validity of any such alleged reissue patent has heretofore been uniformly affirmed, after strenuous litigation, by verdicts or judgments at law, or by final decrees in equity, in several of the Circuit Courts of the United States; but the defendant denies, on information and belief, that any such validity has been generally acquiesced in by the railroad com panies of the United States. All of which statements and defences this defendant is ready to aver, maintain, and prove, as this Honorable Court shall direct; and it prays hence to be dismissed with its costs in this behalf sustained. In witness whereof, the said defendant, The Eastern and Western Railroad Company, has hereunto affixed its corporate seal, and caused the same to be attested by Charles Clark, its Secretary. CHARLES CLARK, L. S. Secretary. RICHARD RAY, Solicitor and Counsel for the Defendant. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, COUNTY OF HARTFORD, 88. On this first day of October, 1883, before me personally appeared Charles Clark, and made oath that he has read the foregoing answer, and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein admitted or stated to be based on information and belief, and as to those matters he believes it to be true. L. 8. ARTHUR ANSON, Notary Public. REPLICATION IN EQUITY. CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, THOMAS TRACY v. THE EASTERN AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY. In Equity. This repliant, saving and reserving unto himself all and all manner of advantage of exception to the manifold insufficiencies of the said answer, for replication thereunto saith, that he will aver and prove his said bill to be true, certain, and sufficient in the law to be answered unto; and that the said. answer of the said defendant is uncertain, untrue, and insufficient to be replied unto by this repliant; without this, that any other matter or thing whatsoever in the said answer contained, material or effectual in the law to be replied unto, confessed and avoided, traversed or denied, is true; all which matters and things this repliant is, and will be, ready to aver and prove, as this Honorable Court shall direct; and humbly prays, as in and by his said bill he hath already prayed. JOHN JAY, Solicitor for the Complainant. |