oourm v. wmrnannmn. 17
this the defendants deny. For these reasons the motion to dismiss is de-
nied. V
The defendant’s exceptions to the masters report are properly before
_ the court at this time for determination. These exceptions are 18 in
number, but only those will be noticed which I think raise material
questions. The main questions before the master were, with what prior
machine or method should a comparison he made with plaintiil"s ma-
chine, in determining the amount of gains and profits; and what was the
amount of the gains and profits to be accounted for as a result of such
- comparison? The patent in controversy was for an improved hide-stretch-
· ing machine, and in estimating the gains and prohts the master found
that a comparison should be made with what was known as the old "dog·
machine," and he found the amount of gains to be accounted for was
$15,412.82. The fourth exception raises the question of the correctness
of the master in making comparison with the old dog-machine, the de·
ifendant contending that comparison should have been made with the old
lsplitteremachine, or with hand labor. I think upon the whole record
·and evidence before him the master was correct in his finding. In view
of the prior state of the art the old dog-machine was the only machine
with which it was proper to make comparison. A comparison clearly
should not have been made with stretching by hand, because I think the
record shows, as found by the master, that a raw hide cannot be as thor-
V ,oughly stretched by hand as by a machine. Bearing in mind the scope
of the Coupe invention, that it was for a machine for stretching raw hides
whole, previous to the hides being manufactured into dressed leather, it
seems toimeé that the master was entirely right, under the decision of
Mowry v.·Whimey, 14 Wall. 620,- in the conclusion he reached. · ` _
, The invention relates to stretching raw hides, and not to hides sub-
jected toasalt and alum bath, which has the effect of softening the hide,
and therefore the master was right in refusing toallow, for the purpose
of establishing gains and profits, a comparison to be made with hides sub-
jectedto a salt and alum bath, or with machines in which such hides are
operated upon. This was made the subject-matter of the third excep-
-tion. As for the fifth exception, I do not understand that the master
ruled outall testimony tending to show that the respondents since the
injunction have produced an equally good quality of raw hide leather by
the useof old devices, and have received the same prices for their goods
‘ as heretofore, and therefore the exception is not well taken.
1 I do not deem it necessary to discuss the other exceptions in detail.
» Some of them are immaterial, but most of them turn upon questions of
fact. Upon consideration I find no error in the master’s findings. The
· motion todismiss and exceptions must be overruled, and it is so ordered.
o v.37F.n0.1—2