ADAMS V. MEIBOSB. 671 �designs on the defendants' article, and arrived at the conclusion from such comparison that the designs of the defendants were, in their effect as a whole, notwithstanding variances, substantially the same as the design of the patent and infringements. In addition to this there was the testimony of witnesses on both sides on the question, and the court was of opinion, also, that the testimony proved the infringements. �In view of the proper test of identity, as above given, and of the simple character of the designs in the present case, and of the absence of any testimony on the part of the defendants, I am of opinion that the absence of testimony as to identity does not malie it im- proper for the court in this case to compare the defendants' nubia ■with the patents, as to design, and determine the question of identity from, such comparison. It is not intended to imply that the practice can be extended to any other patent thau one for a design, or that it ought to be extended to all patents for designs. �On such comparison it is found that the defendants' nubia infringes both of the patents, and a decree in the usaal loiiu in iavor of the plaintiffs, with costs, will be entered. ���Adams V. Meyrose and another.* {Oireuit Court, S. D. Missouri. March 2, 1882.) �l. PaTBKTS— LiCBNSE TO MANUPACTimE AND SeLL — BlLli TO AnNUI. LicENBE AND �FOR Damages— DEMUiiEBR. �Where a complainant alleged in his bill tl^at " by virtue of mesne assignments duly recorded in the patent-office of the United States" he was the sole owner of certain letters patent witliin and for a certain state ; that he had licensed the defendant to inanufacture the patented article in that state, and sell it through- out the United States ; that the defendant had agreed to sell the articles manu- factured under said license at certain schcdule priees, and to pay the complain- ant a certain royalty; that by the terma of the license the rights of the defendant ivere to be forfeitcd and the license to become void in case of failure on the licensee's part to perforai any of the agreeraeiits in the license contained for a speeifled length of time after notice, or to make returns of sales or pay- ments for 20 days after speoified dates; that defendant sold articles manufac- tured under said license at less than the schedule priees, and failed to pay a Toyalty as he had agreed to ; that complainant had notified him that from and after a certain date, 24 daya thereafter, he would consider said license void, in consequence of defendant's breaches of the agreements therein contained ; that �•Kepmted l)y B. F. Rei, Esq., of the SI. Louis bar. ��� �
