52 ` mnmau. nmrorrrna.
of complainant to make the kind of slates he was putting upon the market,
the defendant, in a bullying and menacing style, asserts, to theltrade by
these circulars that complainant is infringing the Goodrich patent, and
threatens all who deal in complainants slates with lawsuits, and all the
perils and vexations which attend upon a patent suit. The average bus-
iness manundoubtedly dreads, and avoids, if he can, a lawsuit of any
kind, but a suit for infringement of a patent is so far outside of the com-
mon man’s experience that he is terrorized by even a threat of such a
suit. t There seems to me certainly good grounds for doubting the validity
of the Goodrich patent in the light of the state of the art at the time he
entered the Held; and that any lawyer well versed inthe law of patents
would surely hesitate to" advise that the complainant’s slates infringed
the Goodrich patent, either before `or after the reissue; and the `conduct
of the defendant in dismissing his suits for such alleged infringement
without trial,shows that he did not believe that such infringement could
be established. j· t ‘· _ ·~ ’ ‘ ` l ‘ l Q _
' Iam; therefore, of opinion that the complainant has made la case en-
titlinglhini to the interposition of a court of equity to prevent the issue i
of circulars, or other written or oral assertions, thatjt-he slates made by
theicomplainant are an infringement upon the defendantls patentjiand
a decreemay accordingly be entered as prayed in the bill. A · ,
T1-in SEA Lam:} < »
. t · Hunsms at al. ·v._ Tnn SEA Lanz. _ _ i .
(Distric! Oowrt, E. D. Wrginia. January 14, 1888.) `
A.DMIRALTY·—·DECB.EE—SUBSEQUENT Cnsm. , V V- ,. _ V. ,_ ,
When the time fixed by the rules of court for making defense has elapsed,
and thejlnbel has been ta en for cnnfessedjbut the formaldecree of condem-
nstionand sals‘has not been entered, on account of the absence of the judge,
, anymaritimeyclsimant who comes in_by;petition subsequent thereto,. dpes so
su ject to thelibel, and cannot be paid tl 1thel1belantis pa1d1nfull,_alt ougli
his claim wasoriginally prior to the libel in dignity. ~' * · ~   ~ ‘
In Admiralty. I , · » e   V   , »
Libel by Hudgins and-Hurst for the cost of sails furnished the-sloop
Sea Lark.; ,,{1`he question at issue is whetherthe claim of _libel.antsgshou1d
have priority over the claim of one Mitchell,· a seaman, f01T»wq.g0s accru-
ing prior totheclaims of libelants. »;. » A .$ » ·- ;   y.
. Whizehurst &:.Hughes, for libelants. l ., ~ . i . . , ; , r   ti
~_ W. A.;Swank, forthe seaman. ’ _»  = ; -  ; _·
,HUc.nms, J.., The libelants, having a claim of $63. for sailsQfurnished'
the Sea Lark in January, 1887, filed a. libel and issued process ofarrest
on the twenty—second of December, last. The libel was dulyserved, and
*Reportéd“`by lkobert M. Hughes, Esq., ofthe Norfolk bar. ° ` V ‘ ` G n `