2 FEDERAL Bmronrnn.
diction of an action brought here in the first instance, and therefore could
not take such jurisdiction by a removal. He relies upon the decision in
Yuba. C0. v. Mining O0. , 32 Fed._Rep.V183. That case was before this court
in the Southern district, in Bourke. v;'A·rmLs0n, Id. 710, and not followed.
The motion in the latter case was for an order setting aside the service
of process, and the opinion discusses the act of 1887 so far only as was
necessary to a decision of that motion., * Subsequently, upon the settle-
ment of the order, the defendant asked for a dismissal, contending that
the court had no jurisdiction. This was denied (orally) on the expressed
ground that jurisdiction would be entertained if the defendant were served
in the Southern district of New York, where the plaintiff resided. · The
whole subject has been elaborately considered in rvr the decisions already
rendered in this and other circuits, which have been cited by the de-
fendant on this argument. It seems unnecessary to add anything to
what has been already written, both“because‘ the subject has been fully
discussed, and because it now appears that the act which the federal
courts have been interpreting- for the past 12 months is not the act which
passed both houses of congress, and received the president’s signature. V
The act printed on the statute-book conforms to the enrollment, but the `
enrolled act, when compared with the original papers on file in the seo-
retary’s office, contains 25 mistakes in spelling, in punctuation, in change;
ing and omitting words, and in thestructure of the bill,-—that is, by
changing paragraphs. Cong. Rec. March 14, 1888, pp. 2102, 2103.
Bnooxrvn Wares-Casa Co. v. Ln.¤.c11.‘ `
(Oircuit Oourt, E'. D. New York. April 16, 1888.)
Fnnmnu. Counrse-Junrsn1orroN—Parnnrs ron INvnm·rons—INJuNorr0N.
On application for an injunctionto prevent defendant from assigning spat- '
ent for a certain improvement in machinery, held, that if complainants case
were founded solely upon some contract or arrangement with defendant. it
` . did not arise under the patent laws, and this court would have no jurisdiction.
- On the other hand, if his claim were based on Bev. St. U. S. § 4899, providing
» ‘ that the purchaser or licensee of a patentable device before the inventor a -»
. plies for a patent, shall not be liable for infringement, then the court, while
,_ aving Jurisdiction, would refuse the application, because of no right being _
‘   shown to the relief asked for. _ . _ · V;
In Equity. On application for preliminary, injunction. l
The bill of complaint alleged that defendant, an employe of complain-
_ ants, had invented certain improvements in c0mplainant’s machinery, in
adopting which complainant had-been put to great expense; that defend-
ant now intended to jtakeout patents on such inventions, and enjoin com-»»
plainant’s useof them, and exact royalties, which., under his contract of ;
employmentwith complainant, defendant was not entitled to exact; that
lkeported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.