forth in its second reason filed with its motion, namely, that the only material matter set forth and alleged in the cross-bill is foreign to the issue involved in this case, and not cognizable therein. As the decision upon the demurrer to the bill in favor of the plaintiff's right to join the two causes of action has opened for him a wide field, my inclination has been, if possible, under the rules relating to cross-bills, to insure to the defendant the same liberality in its defense. A cross-bill ex vi terminorum implies a bill brought by a defendant against the plaintiff in the same suit, or against both, touching the matter in question in the original bill. Story, Eq. Pl. § 389. It is brought either to obtain a discovery of facts in aid of the defense to the original bill, or to obtain full and complete relief to all parties as to the matter charged in the original bill. It should not introduce new and distinct matters not embraced in the original bill, as they cannot be properly examined in that suit, but constitute the subject-matter of an original independent suit. The crossbill is auxiliary to the proceeding in the original suit, and a dependency upon it. It is said by Lord HARDWICKE that both the original and cross-bill constitute but one suit, so intimately are they connected together. Ayres v. Carver, 17 How. 591; Cross v. De Valle, 1 Wall. 1. It should not introduce any distinct matter. It is auxiliary to the original suit, and a graft and dependency upon it. If its purpose be different from this, it is not a cross-bill, though it may have a connection with the same general subject. Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 807. In the last-cited case the bill was filed for infringement of a patent. The defenses were invalidity of the patent and a license. By the cross-bill the defendant sought to set off a judgment against plaintiff against the damages he might recover in the infringement suit. The court held the cross-bill improperly filed. A cross-bill must grow out of the matters alleged in the original bill, and is used to bring the whole dispute before the court, so that there may be a complete decree touching the subjectmatter of the action. Ex parte Railroad Co., 95 U. S. 221. A cross-bill must be confined to the subject-matter of the original bill, and cannot introduce new matters not embraced in the original bill. If it does so, the cross-bill becomes itself an original bill, and there cannot be two original bills in the same cause. Dotz v. Phillips, 24 Wkly. Notes Cas.

382. A cross-bill is like an original bill, except that it must rest on what is necessary to the defense of an original bill. Brandon Manuf'g Co. v. Prime, 14 Blatchf. 371. In the case of Johnson R. S. Co. v. Union S. & S. Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 331, permission was refused to file a crossbill in an infringement suit, wherein the defendant set up the claim of right to a trade mark or name for an electrical system, which included the use of the patentee's name, as going beyond the case of the plaintiff in the original bill, not necessary as a defense to that bill, and matter entirely foreign to the primary controversy. In Young v. Colt, 2 Blatchf. 373, the court say:

"A cross-bill, as its name imports, goes no further than to give the party filing it the reciprocal right enjoyed by the complainant in the original bill in respect to their mutual title or interest in the subject-matter of the suit."

Where a cross-bill to a bill of foreclosure brought by a party representing the British government set up an independent claim of the respondents against the British government, it was held, in Rowan v. Manufacturing Co., 33 Conn. 1, to be matter which, upon general principles, could not be set up by a cross-bill, the court saying:

"If it is true that the matter set up in this cross-bill is wholly independent of the matter set up in the bill, and does not touch or relate to that matter, either for the purpose of defense to it or for any disclosure relating to it, but is merely set up for the purpose of laying the foundation for some independent relief, it seems quite obvious, upon authority and principle, that for the purpose of any such independent relief as is asked for the cross-bill should be dismissed."

In Dotz v. Phillips, supra, a bill was filed for the specific performance of one agreement, and the cross-bill alleged violation of another independent agreement, and prayed relief against the plaintiffs. The court held that the cross-bill was improperly filed, saying:

"The plaintiffs seek a specific performance, and that only. It is no answer to that to say that the plaintiffs have broken another agreement relating to another subject."

In Galatian v. Erwin, Hopk. Ch. 48, the original suit was for foreclosing two mortgages. By cross-bill one of the defendants in her defense sought to impeach for fraud the title of the mortgagor, not only to the mortgaged premises, but to other lands. It was held that as a defense to the original suit the cross-bill was entirely proper, but that it could not introduce a distinct suit relative to the other lands, or become the foundation of a decree concerning matters not embraced in the original suit; and that no decree beyond the subjects of controversy in the original suit could be made in the cause. In the present case the subject-matter of the original bill is the interference between plaintiff's and defendant's patents, and also the alleged infringement of plaintiff's patent by defendant. The defendant's cross-bill is based solely upon an alleged infringement by plaintiff of defendant's patents. If plaintiff's bill was solely for interference between the patents, that would be the only question that could be considered, and a cross-bill would clearly be improper based upon an alleged infringement by plaintiff. An infringement of a patent is a tort, (Rob. Pat. § 931;) and, if the original bill were filed for that alone, the defendant could only attack the rights of the plaintiff under his alleged patent, the validity of the patent, or deny the infringement. He could not set up, by way of defense, another tort, alleged to have been committed by the plaintiff. The joinder of two causes of action in the original bill necessarily involves the joinder of the defenses appropriate in each case, but they are two separate causes of action, although joined, and not a new cause of action, formed by amalgamation, permitting new questions to be raised by defendant different from those relevant to each separate cause of action. The crossbill does not seek to defeat plaintiff's causes of action, and the matters alleged in it are not essential to the complete disposition of plaintiff's case, or of defendant's rights in relation to the plaintiff's causes of action.

Defendant's counsel has argued that, as plaintiff is a foreign corporation, and defendant will be compelled to follow it into another jurisdiction in order to file a bill for infringement, and as plaintiff has come into this court with a matter relating to defendant's patent, that circumstance should be considered, and relief given defendant in the court of plaintiff's own choice. That question was considered in the case of Rowan v. Manufacturing Co., supra, but was held not to authorize the cross-bill based on a counter-claim by defendant. In my judgment the cross-bill cannot be sustained, and, agreeably to the mode pursued by counsel in raising the question of its validity, it should be stricken from the record. Let an order be made accordingly.

ENTERPRISE MANUF'G Co. v. DEISLER.

ENTERPRISE MANUF'G Co. v. WANAMAKER.

(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. June 2, 1891.)

1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ANTICIPATION-MEAT-Cutter.

Letters patent No. 271,398, issued to John G. Baker, January 30, 1883, for improvements in mechanism to cut up plastic or yielding substances, consisting of a machine in which the sole reliance for cutting is upon a knife or other cutting device operating in conjunction with a perforated plate at the points of discharge from the casing, and in which there is no intentional disturbance of the substance to be cut, other than to force it forward, before it reaches the plate, is not invalid on account of anticipation. Following Manufacturing Co. v. Sargent, 34 Fed. Rep. 134. 2. SAME-INFRINGEMENT.

The first claim of said patent for the combination of a casing for containing the substance to be cut, a perforated plate at the end of the casing, a device for forcing the substance forward in the casing and against the plate without otherwise disturb ing it, and a knife operating against the inner face of the plate, is infringed by a device containing all the elements specified, though there is some unintentional disturbance caused by the forcing apparatus in the substance to be cut before it reaches the plate.

8. SAME.

The second claim of said patent for the combination of a casing, a perforated plate, a rotating knife, and a forcing screw is not infringed by a device in which a cylinder with fingers is substituted for the forcing screw.

4. SAME-RES ADJUDICATA.

A decision in the circuit court on the validity of a patent should be followed by the courts of other circuits, except where its validity is afterwards challenged by evidence that was not introduced at the former hearing.

Bills in equity by the Enterprise Manufacturing Company v. Deisler, manufacturer, and John Wanamaker, seller, of a meat-cutting device, to enjoin the infringement of patent No. 271,398.

Charles Howson, for complainant.

Horace Pettit, for respondents.

BUTLER, J. The suits are for infringement of claims 1 and 2 of letters patent No. 271,398, issued to John G. Baker, January 30, 1883, for 'Improvements in mechanism to cut up plastic or yielding substances." The facts in each are the same; and they are, therefore, considered to

gether. The defense, as set up in the answer, is twofold: First, that the patent is invalid; and, second, that it is not infringed. The first was involved and fully considered, in a suit by this plaintiff against Sargeant & Co., by the circuit court for Connecticut, in 1883, and the patent sustained. The question was examined and an opinion filed, on motion for preliminary injunction; and again more fully and elaborately considered on final hearing. The first of these opinions is found in 28 Fed. Rep. 185, and the second in 34 Fed. Rep. 134. We are asked to reconsider the question, on the grounds that the decision is not binding upon us, and that further anticipatory evidence is produced. As respects the first it is only necessary to say that a proper regard for the interests of suitors requires that the decisions shall be given controlling effect. The importance of uniformity in the law, as administered in the several circuits, is too great to be disregarded, even where the judges may differ in opinion. Conflicting decisions on the same patent would be an intolerable evil. The rule in this circuit is well settled. Manufacturing Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 30 Fed Rep. 625; Mayo v. The Chelmsford, 34 Fed. Rep. 399; Hammerschlag v. Garrett, 9 Fed. Rep. 43; Zinsser v. Krueger, 45 Fed. Rep. 574; Cary v. Manufacturing Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 344. The question of validity, therefore, is open only so far as respects the additional evidence introduced; and this does not require extended discussion.

In the suit against Sargeant & Co. the court decided that John G. Baker was the first to invent a machine for cutting plastic or yielding substances, in which all preliminary cutting devices were eliminated and the sole reliance for cutting was upon a knife or other cutting device, operating in conjunction with a perforated plate, at the points of discharge from the casing, and in which there was no intentional disturbance of the substance, (other than to force it forward,) before reaching the plate. Upon these characteristics the court distinguished the Baker machine from all others in previous use. We do not find anything in the additional evidence to justify a different conclusion. Other devices are shown; but they add nothing to the force of the defense made in that case. What was there said in distinguishing Baker's cutter from the devices set up may justly be applied to the additional devices shown here. The Dollman and the Miles machines, which were before Judge SHIPMAN, seem quite as much like the complainant's as are any of the additional devices set up. The Baker machine of patent 220,112, first introduced here, is not intended to cut "yielding substances," nor anything else; and is not adapted to such a purpose. It is a "press" designed for extracting juice from fruits alone. Resemblances may be found in some of its parts and combinations, to the complainant's machine. It has a casing, a forcing screw, and what may be called a perforated plate or sieve. These elements are not, however, combined as in the complainant's machine; and the complainant's knife operating in conjunction with the perforated plate, is wanting. Intended for different purposes the organization of the two machines is dissimilar, and neither is capable of doing the work for which the other is designed.

The Brethon machine of the English patent of 1887, is intended for "grinding, mingling, melaxating, and freeing clay" from hard substances, in preparing it for the manufacture of tile, brick, and so forth. It, also, is unsuited for the use to which the complainant's is applied; and is hardly more like it than the "press" referred to. It, also, has a casing, a screw with blades or arms above, and a perforated plate below, connected with a scraper which operates upon its under surface. It has not, however, the screw or other forcing mechanism, described in the complainant's patent, and operating in conjunction with the casing, as shown in his machine. Neither the screw, nor the blades or arms above, bear such relation to the casing, as would render them effective for the purposes of the complainant's forcing device. Nor has it the complainant's knife, operating in conjunction with the perforated plate. The machine was not intended for cutting purposes; and such a device, would, therefore, be out of place in it. The perforated plate is employed simply to afford means of escape for the softened clay, while the scraper is employed to remove hard substances that may be deposited on its surface. Mr. Brethon calls the latter instrument, indiscriminately, a "knife,” a "blade," and a "scraper." It is, however, a scraper, and nothing more. While resemblances may be found in Brethon's machine also, to the complainant's, no one observing the former without knowledge of the latter would receive a hint of its possible applicability to the use of cutting meat, or other yielding substance.

Simpson's machine, of the English patent of 1873, for cutting peat, tan, and other fibrous substances, bears little if any, greater resemblance to the complainant's. The language of his specifications (which is general, and apparently indefinite) must be read in connection with the drawings intended to illustrate its meaning. Neither of the figures shown exhibit anything like the complainant's machine. If it were true that the latter might be formed, substantially, by combining parts of the several structures exhibited, (as the respondent urges,) this would not show anticipation, but rather the construction of a new device. Here again, it may be justly said that no one looking at the machine, in either of the forms of construction exhibited, would receive a suggestion of the complainant's invention. This machine, as well as Brethon's, is intended to, and does, operate upon the material fed during the process of feeding, and both, therefore, seem to belong to the class of which the Miles device is an example.

The Jones patent of 1858, reissued in 1865, is for a meat-cutter; but it, also, is essentially unlike the complainant's. Its material parts are a cylindrical casing, around a fluted roller with spiral, flat, sharpened ribs, with an opening at the bottom, in which a serrated knife is fixed, to co-operate with the sharpened edges of the ribs in cutting meat. It has no forcing apparatus properly considered, and the cutting virtually ceases when the operator's hand is withdrawn; nor has it a perforated plate. In construction, operation, and effect the machine is essentially unlike the complainant's. Nothing further need be said on the first branch of the defense.