Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/648

t)4U FEDEEAL EEPOETEB. �appears wben the ownership of the coal is traced to the respondents. The law impliea a contract from the relations of the parties growing out of the transaction. Bobbins y. Welsh, 9 Phila. E. 409; Griffiths v. Ingledew, 6 S. & E. 429; R. Co. V. Northham, 2 Benedict's E. 1. The case is readily distin- guishable from an ordinary claim for demarrage where the obligation of the vessel is to carry to a particular port, leaving to it the selection of a place to unload. �A decree must be entered for the libellants. ���Btjsset V. ExcBLsroB Manpg. Co. �{Circuit Court, E. B. Missouri. Pebruary 5, 1880.) �Patent— Inpringement — Damages— Evidence. — A rescindee! contract in relation to the payment of royalty for thie use of a patent is not com- petent evidence in determining the measure of damages for the inf ringe- ment of the same. �Exceptions of complainant to report of master as to assass- inent of damages. �Sprague e Hunt, for complainant. �Samuel S. Boyd, for respondent. �Trbat, J., (orally.) Complainant relied for the measure of damages upon a rescinded contract, wherein the respondent agreed that if ail or any of the several patents named therein ■were used by the respondent, one dollar royalty for each stove manufactured should be paid, There was no other evi- dence oiïered before the master. Now, as said contract had no longer existence, and the court held that but two of the several patents were infringed, it became necessary to ascer- tain, in some intelligent manner, the damages sustained by the complainant for the use thereof. No evidence on that subject was offered, and thereupon the master reported nom- inal damages. The contention is that he should have gone back to the rescinded contract, and applied the terms thereof to the condition of affaira after such contract ceased to be obligatory. The court holds otherwise. The exceptions are overruled, the report confirmed, and costs divided as hereto- fore ordered. ��� �