Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/297

AXWOOD V. THE PORTLAND OO. 285 �grant of power can be construed to depend upon the added power to grant injunctions. In the following cases, very able and learned judges have said that the jurisdiction is statutory, and not depend- ent upon the general rules which govern what we may call customary equity, or have simply said that the plaintiff might elect his remedy. Nevins v. Johnson, 3 Blatchf . 80 ; Sickles v. Glouccster Manu/g Co. 3 Wall. Jr. 196 ; Imlay v. Nor. <e Wor. R. Co. 4 Blatclif. 227; Howes v. Nute, 4 Fish. 263 ; Hoffheins-y.Brandt, 3 Fish. 218 ; Marsh v. Seymour, 97 U. S. 348, 349 ; Perry v. Corning, 7 Blatchf. 195 ; Cowing v. liumsey, 8 Blatchf. 36, 38. Add to these the several decisions before cited, and the point seems to be established; for those decisions can hardlyrest upon a narrower foundation. �Mr. Justice Grier, one of the first judges to lay down this broad rnle, afterwards qualified its generality in certain dicta ; but he was careful not to decide against the jurisdiction in equity. See Living- ston V. Joneg, 3 Wall. Jr, 330, 344; Sanders v. Logan, 2 Fish. 170; and see Judge McKennan's explanation of these cases in McMillin t. Barclay, 5 Fish. 189, 194. �A constitutional objection might, perhaps, be raised to the deniai of a jury trial in the case of a bill for the mere recovery of a definite sum of money, if the plaintiff clearly required no equitable remedy or assistance whatsoever. That point bas not been argued in this or any other case that I know of, and may be left for decision when it shall arise. Such cases must be rare, because the accounting in equity is a peculiar remedy, to which an action at law for damages can very rarely be adequate, unless the plaintiff chooses to cousider it so. He may call for an aecount in equity, and, if that proves unsatiafactory, may add damages in the same suit. This case might rest upon that basis. �In relation to the validity of the reissue the faots are as follows : In his original patent, Atwood described a car wheel cast in one piece, with a solid hub; next the rim was a plate (called by him a ring) made in a succession of radial waves, or corrugations like radii, and this plate was connected with the hub by means oE a dished "flanch or flanches," which would yield to the contraction of the metal in the direction of the radii. The patentee supposed that the con- traction of the wheel in cooling was principally in a circumferential direction, or across the radii, and the radial waves would yield in this direction. His claim was limited to that form of plate and a flanch or flanches. It was discovered afterwards that the contraction is ��� �