WESTERN UNION TEL. 00. *0. BALTIMORE & 01110 TEL. co. 55
defendants depends are different, and cannot be made the same by
any form of averment in the petition. According to the rule laid
down in Ayres v. Wiswall, supra, there is involved a separable con-
troversy, justifying the removal of the cause to this court, under the
act of 1875.
Motion to remand is therefore overruled.
Wmsrmzu Umor: TEL. Co. v. Bsnrmoms & Onto TEL. Co.
(Ctirouit Court, S. D. New York. December 24, 1885.)
1. IN.n:mcrrou—Pn1vsTE l4ETTEl\.S·-WHEN Orrosmo Pur: Eurrrrrnri T0 PUT
m EVIDENCE.
Where a party seeking to procure an interlocutory order uses documents or
letters in the alhdavit therefor, at any subsequent stage of the action, the oppos-
ing party will be entitled to introduce such letters or documents in evi ence
against the patty who originally used them. ·
2. BAME——CORPORATIONS—LETTERB or Tun Ormoans or.
A corporation can speak or act only through its oiilcers or agents, and
their declarations made in the course of their employment, and relating to the
immediate transaction in which they are engaged, are always competent as
against the company.
8. Saun—C0NrmENTm. CoMmmro.vr1o¤—LE1TEn or CORPOBATION’S Arronunr.
Where a corporation has produced in evidence fragmentaryparts of the
letters of its attorney, written to the other officers of the company, it cannot
be allowed to shelteritself behind the privilege to insist upon the privacy of
the communications. By introducing any part it surrenders Its privilege as to
the whole of such letters.
` In Equity.
Dickerson it Dickerson, for complainant.
Frederick H. Betts, for defendant. ,
Wsnnscn, J. Upon a motion in this cause for a preliminary in-
junction one of the questions involved was whether the reissued patent
upon which the suit is founded was obtained for the legitimate purpose .
of correcting mistake or inadvertence in the specification and claims
of the original, or whether it was obtained merely for the purpose of
expanding the claims of the original in order to subordinate to the
reissue certain improvements or inventions made by others interme- —
diate the grant of the original and the application for the reissue.
To fortify its theory of the true reasons for obtaining the reissue the
complainant upon that motion embodied in afhdavits then used ex- A
tracts from communications made by Mr. Buckingham, a patent ex-
pert and attorney in the office ofthe general solicitor of the complain-
ant, to the president and the vice-president of the complainant, when
the subject of applying for a reissue was under consideration by the
oiiicers of the complainant, and while the proceedings for a reissue
were pending. The cause has proceeded to the taking of proofs for
final hearing,. and the defendant new wishes to introduce in evidence t