m'kAY V. DIBEET. 587 �If the speculation was coutrary to public policy and illegal, it had been closed, wound up, and the illegal object of it had been accomplished. �It is settled by the United States siipreine court {McBlair V. Gibbes, 17 How. 237; Brooks v. Martin, 3 Wall. 70, and authorities cited) that when the illegal contract is completed, and money has been received by a joint owner? by force of the illegal contract, he will hot be permitted to retain it, and can- not protect himself by setting up the illegality of the trans- action in which it was paid him, but muat account to bis associates. �It is also urged by the defendant that plaintiff, if entitled to a share of the profit, can only enforce his claim in equity. I think an action at law gives adequate relief. The parties were engaged in a single venture, and the defendant, hq-ving appropriated the proceeds to his own use, made himself a debtor to the plaintiff. Judgment will be entered in favor of the plaintiff for $451, and interest from Novëmber 22, 1879. The amount being less than $500, costs must be paid by the plaintiff. ���MçKay, Trustee, etc., v. Dibebt.* {Ûireuit Court, D. Nm Jersey. Jailuary 11, 1881.) �1. Patents— Infbinqement—Provibional Injdnction. �Where complainant has for a iiumber of years beeu in the exteiisiTe and undisputed use of patents, and during a)l that period there ha» been a public acquiescence in the monopoly, a provisional iDjunction to restrain infringement will be grauted, unless sbme special facts appear to take it out of the general rule. ■-.'.< �2. Sahb — Sbparatb Patekts fûb Machine, Proôess and Peoduct Ex- �piration OP ONB, OtHBSS STILL ExiSTJCSfQ. , �Where, under tUe acts of July 4, 1836, and March 3, 1839, a patent was t'aken out for a machine for the manufacture of a specifie article, and subsequently, and within two years; patents^ were applied for and granted for the process of manufacturing such article, and also for the product of such process as a new article of manufacture,. Arfd, that the patents for the process and product did not terminale wilh (be �*RepoTted by Homer C. Eller, Esq., of the St. Paul bar. ����
