MILLER V. LIGGKTT is METBRS TOBACCO CD. 91 �Miller and others v. The LiGctETT & MterS' ToBiCoo Co. �{Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. January.31, 1881,) r : i ;.; �1. EsTOPPBi,— Jtjpgmeht. . . , ' . �A party is bound by an adjudication where he has all tho^ drdihary rights of a litigant with respect to such ad judicatioil'. ' ' �2. Samb— Same. ' �A party who contributes mouey.for the piirpose oi employing «oun- sel, apd oarrying on a litigation, under a contra,ct with a parjt^.,to t^l^e record, bas the right to take such action in the case as will prot«ct his iutereats in such litigation. �3. Same — Samb — Pbactice. �The validity of a patent having been va part sustaifted in olie oir- , cuit, suit was brought in another circuit for infrtfigement by a,paiity who had oontributed to the payment of the couqsel who had defended the flrst suit. Held, that the defendant was estopped by the adjudi- cation in the other circuit, but that the court -WOuld not enter any decree based upon that opinion, until the conclusion of the litigation in such other circuit. �4. Pbacticb—Priou Use. ' .? ...... �Evidence of prior use having been introduced in the latter suit, Md, that the proper way to procecd would be by motion for a r^ hearing in the other circuit.— [Ed. : , �In Equity. ■ .: j; �A suit having been brought against Poree & Op., tobacco manufacturer, at Louisville, for infringing the Miller & Wor- ley patent, re-issue No. 8060, for "finishing tobacco plugs," said patent having two claims — one for the process and one for the product — these defendants, with some dozen other tobacco manufaoturers, issued a oircular to their customera promising to protect them against any suit Miller & Worley might bring against them for dealing in the subscriber's tobacco. It further appeared that the above defendants oon- tributed to the payment of counsel whO defended the Foree case, but in all other respects were entirely independent of, and had no connection whatever with. Foree & Co. The evidence showed also that their prqcess was in many essen- tials different irom that practiced by, Foree & Co. The pro- duct claim was held void. Much new evidence, as antici- ��� �
