BEEKMAN v. mins0N RIVER wnsr srrona RY. oo. `3 A
defendant was now_ about __to__ assign ahcertain patent. to somd person "un-
f known ;Q and thereupon the billiaskedfor a release and discharge of com-
plainant from the charge of alleged infringementgand an injunction to
_prevent defendant from disposinguof his improvements, and from enforc-
ing against complainant any or a of his letters patent now or hereafter
to be taken out. This was a preliminary application for an injunction
veto prevent a transfer of a certain specified patent. _‘ _
G. G. Frelinghuyaen, for complainant. r ,
A Morris &: Pcarsatl, for defendant. " A ‘ _
Lscomsn, J. I Gnd no papers submitted except the bill of complaint
and briefs. From them it is not clear upon what application the ques·
tions now raised are before the court. The only point argued in the briefs
is as to the jurisdiction of this court. That may more properly be de-
termined upon a demurrer than by motion to dismiss, because the ques-
tion as to whether there is equity in the bill may then be disposed of; a
questionvwhich does not come up on a naked application to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction. If the complainant’s case is founded solely upon
some contract or arrangement with thedefendant, then it does not arise
under the patent laws, and this court_ has no jurisdiction. If, however,
his sole claim is based upon the provisions of section 4899 of the Revised
Statutes, then this courtmay have jurisdiction to entertain it, but may
refuse the relief asked for, because complainant does not show any right,
either to require defendant to execute a release, or to enjoin him from
disposing of any patent he may receive without first notifying the pur-
chasers of complainaut’s rights. The section above cited from the Re-
vised Statutes aifords the complainant absolute protection, and equity
will not interpose to secure him additional securities, in the absence oi
any averments showing that he is harassed by threats of litigation or
 other interference with his rights.
Bmmxmm v. Hons0N Rrvan Wrsr SHORE RY. Co. et al.
,_ (Circuit Uourt, B. D. New Ybrlc. April 27, 1888.)
1. Couivrs-Fmnnnu. Drs·rarc*rs—Sou*rmmN Drsrmcr or Naw Yonx—Wr:s·r
Perrier Rm_s1=:nv.s·r10N. . _ _ _ _ » _
“ he United States reservation at West Point, in the state of New York. is
within the “Southern district of New York, " and the circuit court of that
district has jurisdiction of a bill to foreclose a mortgage executed by a rail-
road company upon its right of way through that reservation granted it by
r congress, audits improvements thereon. ·
2. SAnm—Co1~n¤Lrc·r or Smrn Ann Fmnmuu. J vnrsnrcrron. ·
. The pendency in the  tate courts of a suit by the trustees of a railroad
  mortgage to foreclose is ppt a bar to a similar suit in the federal court byu
» bond o der secured thereby.