` 16 FEDERAL REPORTER. ’
Courm et al. v. WnA·r1—rr.nm1:.u> ct al.
‘ (Ctrcuit Oourt, D. Rhode Leland. November 15, 1888.
1. E1?[Urrr—P1{Ac·r1c1a:—Mor10N ·ro Drsmss Arrrnn Dncrsrorz Ann Rmrmanucn ro
` §Ie?a suit has been decided in favor of the complainant, and the cause re—
ferred to a master to take an account of damages, the court will not reverse
its former decision and dismiss the bill, where the alleged errors concern only
disputed questions of fact, and the` defendants do not point out any clear mis-
take of law, or clear and decisive mistake of fact.
2. ·Pivrnn·rs ron Invnunous-INFRINGEMENT-Mnnsuan or Damaens.
; In an account taken to ascertain the profit of using the Coupe machine for
stretching raw hides whole, described in letters patent No. 213,323, it is proper
, ‘ ` to comparethe profit of using this machine with that of the former machine
. ‘ used for that purpose, and not with that of machines which stretch hides after
they have been soaked in saltand alum, or with hand labor, since a raw hide
Q cannot be thoroughly stretched by hand.
In Equity. on motion to dismiss and on exceptions to master’s re-
` I   Action by William Coupe and others against George Weatherhead and
others for an infringement of letters patent N0. 213,323, issued March
18, 1879, to plaintiff Coupe. A ‘ ` '
‘Benj. F. Thurston, for complainants. _
~ . Walter B. Vincent, for defendants. ‘ E
Com, J. This case now comes before the court on motion to dismiss,
’ and exceptions to themaster’s report. In 1883, upon a full hearing of
the case before two judges, the court determined that the defendants in-
fringed the first and third claims of the Coupe patent, No. 213,323, and
j the cause was sent to the master to take an account. 16 Fed. Rep. 673.
` The present motion to dismiss is founded upon the proposition that this
y court may, atthis stage of the cause, if it discovers that it has made a
mistake, reverseits former decision, and dismiss the bill. Without ques-
tioning the rule that a court may at any time correct a mistake while the
case is withinits control, yet, where a cause has been deliberately heard
upon pleadings and proofs, and a decision reached, and the party has
a right of appeal, before the court should reverse a former decision, it
A must be perfectly clear that an error was committed. In the present
' case I am unable to reach such a conclusion. Thedecision turned largely
. ” _`upon_ questions of fact, and the defendants now seek to have the same
(issues of fact which were decided against them- reviewed again by this
_ court. V Clearly such a practice as this, if countenanced at all, should be
  most carefully guarded, and thedefendants should show a clear mistake
Q of law,loripoint outa clear and decisive mistake pf fact, before the court
iq should entertain at this stage ofthe case a motion to dismiss. Inthe
`_ present case I am not referred to any such mistake of law or fact, though ·
  I am aware that defendant’s counsel insists that with respect to certain
*disputed‘ questions of fact the additional evidence taken before the mas·
ter shows that the court was in error in some of its original findings; but