WHITE V. LEE. 919 �wliole invention. But, whatever may be the meaning of the stipulations in question, the defendant should.ans-wer the bill. The plea does not bring the case to a single decisive point. It raises the issues usually made in the answer to a patent suit, namely: uponthe true construction of the re-issue, and of the license, and of the original patent ; and, upon examination of what the defendant has done, to what extent has he infringed, not technically infringed, but made the patented thing, which, ■were it not for the license, would be an infringement, and which, under the license, gives the plaintiffs a claim for royalty? The patents are not, asyet, in the record, and I do not see how the issues can be intelligently decided without them. Stated in another way, the difficulty is that the plea, admits a liability to account, but furnishes no account, nor the materials for making one. It is not an acoounting in equity to.say that you bave accounted, unless there has been a stated account, which is not the averment here. The defend- ant was to keep accounts and render statements, and was to put upon each pair of shoes stamps of a certain sort. He says he has done ail this ; but he ought to say it by way of answer^ that the plaintiffs may bave the discovery they seek, and that the case may take the usual course and go to a master, if necessary,to have the account properly made up. The points raised in the plea will be equally available to the defendant in answer. �Case to stand for answer.^ ����
