better paper bags than the old Lorenz & Honiss machines or the old Stilwell machines were producing."

But, granting all this, it is certainly disputable that the non-use was unreasonable or that the rights of the public were involved. There was no question of a diminished supply or of increase of prices, and can it be said, as a matter of law, that a non-use was unreasonable which had for its motive the saving of the expense that would have been involved by changing the equipment of a factory from one set of machines to another? And even if the old machines could have been altered, the expense would have been considerable. As to the suggestion that competitors were excluded from the use of the new patent, we answer that such exclusion may be said to have been of the very essence of the right conferred by the patent, as it is the privilege of any owner of property to use or not use it, without question of motive. Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 546.

The right which a patentee receives does not need much further explanation. We have seen that it has been the judgment of Congress from the beginning that the sciences and the useful arts could be best advanced by giving an exclusive right to an inventor. The only qualification ever made was against aliens in the act of 1832. That act extended the privilege of the patent law to aliens, but required them "to introduce into public use in the United States the invention or improvement within one year from the issuing thereof," and indulged no intermission of the public use for any period longer than six months. A violation of the law rendered the patent void. The act was repealed in 1836. It is manifest, as is said in Walker on Patents, § 106, that Congress has not "overlooked the subject of non-user of patented inventions." And another fact may be mentioned. In some foreign countries the right granted to an inventor is affected by non-use. This policy, we must assume, Congress has not been ignorant of nor of its effects. It has, nevertheless, selected another policy; it has continued that policy through many years. We may assume that ex

perience has demonstrated its wisdom and beneficial effect upon the arts and sciences.

From the character of the right of the patentee we may judge of his remedies. It hardly needs to be pointed out that the right can only retain its attribute of exclusiveness by a prevention of its violation. Anything but prevention takes away the privilege which the law confers upon the patentee. If the conception of the law that a judgment in an action at law is reparation for the trespass, it is only for the particular trespass that is the ground of the action. There may be other trespasses and continuing wrongs and the vexation of many actions. These are well-recognized grounds of equity jurisdiction, especially in patent cases, and a citation of cases is unnecessary. Whether, however, a case cannot arise where, regarding the situation of the parties in view of the public interest, a court of equity might be justified in withholding relief by injunction we do not decide.

Decree affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN thinks that the original bill should have been dismissed. He thinks the facts are such that the court should have declined, upon grounds of public policy, to give any relief to the plaintiff by injunction, and he dissents from the opinion and judgment.

210 U.S.

Opinions Per Curiam, Etc.

OPINIONS PER CURIAM, ETC., MAY 18 AND
JUNE 1, 1908.

No. 221. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF DECATUR, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ALBERT G. HENRY. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama. Argued April 30 and May 1, 1908. Decided June 1, 1908. Per Curiam. Dismissed with costs on the authority of Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. of Texas v. Evans, 175 U. S. 723; Mason v. United States, 136 U. S. 581; Eastland v. Jones, Minor (Ala.), 275 (1824). See act of February 7, 1818, Toulmin's Digest, 448. Mr. Edgar W. Godbey and Mr. Hannis Taylor for plaintiff in error. Mr. Amos E. Goodhue for defendant in error.

No. 18. Original. Ex parte: IN THE MATTER OF THE PERTH AMBOY DRY DOCK COMPANY, PETITIONER. Submitted May 4, 1908. Decided June 1, 1908. Per Curiam. Rule discharged and petition dismissed without prejudice. In re Rice, 155 U. S. 396, 402; In re N. Y. & Porto Rico Steamship Company, 155 U. S. 523; In re Alix, 166 U. S. 136. Mr. James D. Dewell, Jr., for petitioner. Mr. Charles R. Snyder for respondent.

Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari,
May 18 and June 1, 1908.

No. 713. FULGENCIO SEGRERA ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. THE STEAMSHIP FRI, ETC. May 18, 1908. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. J. Parker Kirlin and Mr. Arnold Charles Weil for petitioners. Mr. Frederick M. Brown for respondents.

Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 210 U.S.

No. 735. JAMES A. SHINE ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. Fox BROTHERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY. May 18, 1908. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Shepard Barclay, Mr. Thomas T. Fauntleroy and Mr. C. H. Fauntleroy for petitioners. Mr. Herbert R. Marlatt for respondent.

No. 716. EUGENE Martin, PETITIONER, v. RICHARD T. WILSON, ETC. May 18, 1908. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. William J. Harding for petitioner. Mr. John G. Milburn for respondent.

No. 725. THE NOVELTY TUFTING MACHINE COMPANY, PETITIONER, V. THE CHAMPION BED LOUNGE COMPANY ET AL. May 18, 1908. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Walter F. Murray and Mr. Everett Dufour for petitioner. Mr. Arthur Stem for respondents.

No. 736. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, PETITIONER, V. MRS. JOSEPHINE KING; and No. 737. SoUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. INEZ KING, ETC. May 18, 1908. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted. Mr. John J. Strickland for petitioner. Mr. Charles D. Hill for respondents.

No. 764. THE CITY OF OMAHA, PETITIONER, v. OMAHA WATER COMPANY. June 1, 1908. Petition for a writ of certio

210 U.S.

Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari.

rari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. Mr. John L. Webster and Mr. C. C.. Wright for petitioner. Mr. Howard Mansfield and Mr. R. S. Hall for respondent.

No. 771. THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER, v. CHARLES R. EVANS ET AL. June 1, 1908. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia granted. The Attorney General and The Solicitor General for petitioner. No appearance for respondents.

No. 729. AJAX METAL COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. BRADY BRASS COMPANY. June 1, 1908. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. John G. Johnson and Mr. A. B. Stoughton for petitioner. Mr. Frank H. Platt for respondent.

No. 738. THE PULLMAN COMPANY, PETITIONER,, v. WILLIE C. BACON. June 1, 1908. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. John B. Knox for petitioner. Mr. Joseph J. Willett and Mr. Alex. C. Birch for respondent.

No. 761. DELLA B. SWEETING, PETITIONER, V. THE STEAMER WESTERN STATES, ETC. June 1, 1908. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. J. H. Metcalf for petitioner. Mr. Adelbert Moot for respondent.

VOL. CCX-28