570 FEDERAL REPORTER. �Olendoep and another v. Eckleb. {OireuU Court, Jf. D. New York. JMay 24, 1880.) Patent— Pbiob Ubb. �H. Striyes, for plaintiflFs. �L. I. Bwrnett, for defendant. �Blatohfoed, 0. J. The testimony satisfaotorily establishe» that the invention claimed in the plaintifs' patent was known to and used by Lewis Perkins before it was made by the plain- tiffs. The bill must, therefore, be dismissed, with costs. ���Dat V. CoMBiNATioN RuBBEB Co. and another. �{Circuit Court, 8. D. New York. 'SA&j 6, 1880.) �jDDOMBarrs — BiNDisa Effeot of. — Judgments and decrees are conclu- sive evidence of facts only as between parties and privies. �Patent — Impkovement in Skiet Pbotectohs — Construction of. — There being no evidence in this case impeaching the prma/ac4«eff ectof the patent involved, being one for improvement in skirt protectors, it is constraed with reference to prior existing devices to ascertain its scope. �In Equity. �Miles B. Andrus and Edward N. Dickerson, for complain- ani. �M. P. Staford, for defendants. �Wheeleb, D. J. This bill is brought for relief against an alleged infringement of letters patent No. 61,172, dated January 15, 1867, to Thomas B. De Forest, for an improve- ment in binding for skirts, and now owned by plaintiff. �The defences set up in the answer are that the defendant, the rubber company, is operating under a patent, No. 155,134, dated September 20, 1874, to Helen Marie MacDonald, for an improvement in dress protectors, and that they do not infringe the plaintiff's patent. �While the application of MacDonald was pending an inter- ference was declared between her and one Chase, in the ����
