HAYDEN V. GREAT PALLS MANUf'G 00. 519 �taining bis patent, and render the determination of the other questions, which is not without difficulty, although they have been presented witb great tboroughness and care in argu- ment, unnecessary. There is no question made about in- fringement, and there must be a decree for the plaintiff. �Let a deeree be entered for an injunotion and an account, according to the prayer of the bill, with costs. ���Hayden V. Gbbat Palls Manopacturino Company. �{OireuU Court, D. New Mtmpshire. , 1880.) �1. Patent— Pkactice—Supbbme Cotjrt Eqtjallt Dividbd. �In Equity. �The defendants filed a demurrer, and, among other causes, alleged that the complaint was barred by the statute of lim- itations. The patent was dated December 1, 1857, and ex- tended seven years. In 1866 a partial account of damages was rendered to the complainant ; the question being whether the suit could be maintained after the expiration of the pat- ent. �Geo. L. Boberts e Brothers, for complainant. �Mr. Copeland, for defendant. �LoWELL, G. J. This question has been once argued before the full bench, at Washington, when the court was equally divided in opinion, Under these circumstances the case is to be re-argued, and, pending its decision, the rule heretofore adopted in this circuit will be, until otherwise ordered by the supreme court, maintained, viz., to permit the bill to be brought. �The demurrer was overruled. ����
