600 FEOEBAL BEFOBTEB. �Banning e Davidson and L. M. Hosea, for motion. �Jeptha D. Garrard, contra. �Swing, D. J. The bill in this case alleges that oom- plainants are owners of a certain patent in relation to im- provements in induction-coil apparatus; that the defendant is infringing their said patent, and prays for an injunotion and for damages. The bill was filed September 27, 1880, and on the same day a subpœna in chancery was issued to the marshal of said district, who returns that he served the same in Ross county, Ohio, by delivering a copy of it to the mayor andclerk of the city of Chillicothe. The subpœna re- quired the defendant to appear by the first Monday in Novem- ber. On the first Monday of November the defendant, by its attoraeys, Banning & Davidson, entered its appearance in the cause. On the fourth day of December, on mo- tion of defendant, leave was given to answer by the first Monday of February. On the twenty-first day of February, 1881, on motion of defendant, leave was given to answer in 20 days; and on the eighteenth day of Mareh, 1881, the defendant filed its motion to dismiss, as follows : "Now cornes the defendant, the City of Chillicothe, by its counsel, and moves the court to dismiss the bill herein filed, for want of jurisdiction, the defendant being a resident of the eastern division of the southem district of Ohio, and not found or served in the western division herein." On the fourth of February, 1880, an act was passed by congress dividing the southem district of Ohio into two divisions, to be known as the eastern and western divisions ; Eoss county, in which the city of Chillicothe, the defendant, is, being in the eastern division. This act provides that "ail suits not of a local nature, in the circuit and district courts, against a single de- fendant, inhabitant of said state, must be brought in the division of the district where he resides." Under this provis- ion it is clear that this suit should have been brought in the eastern division, and not in this, and if the defendant had entered its appearance for the purpose only of moving to dis- miss the suit, the motion would have been granted ; but the appearance was the general appearance of the party. Not only ��� �
