Mahlon Pitney

“ The prayer for relief based upon infringement of patent and that based upon unfair competition in trade were but parts of a single suit in equity. The decree entered pursuant to the decision of the appellate court did not bring the suit to a conclusion for either purpose. As to unfair competition, it evidenced a quasi definitive decision in plaintiffs' favor, but an inquiry before a master still was necessary before final decree could pass; an inquiry not formal or ministerial, but judicial in order to ascertain the amount of the damages to be awarded. ”

“ Defendant answered, admitting in the main, or at least not denying, the allegations of the so-called bill of review as to the former proceedings and decrees in the courts of the two circuits, but denying that the lamp involved in the Abercrombie & Fitch Company suit (the 'Justrite lamp') corresponded in essential features of construction with the 'Grier lamp' involved in the present suit; averring that the decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals of the two circuits were not rendered on the same state of facts ”

“ Nor was the situation presented in the present case analogous to that passed upon by this court in Hill v. Chicago & Evanston Railroad Co., 140 U.S. 52, 11 Sup. Ct. 690, 35 L. Ed. 331, which arose out of its decision in 129 U.S. 170, 9 Sup. Ct. 269 32 L. Ed. 651. ”