Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/617

DETWEILER V. VOEGE. 603 �the Standard Manufacturing Company and John L, Mason, caused the maohinery in the factory, including these three machines, to be 8old at sheriii's sale, at which sale he bought in the property, and thereafter operated the faetory himself, using the said maohinery, including these three machines. While so operating the factory Fleming added to its machinery another Blakeslee machine, being the fourth of the machines complained of in this action. �It cannot he doubted, I think, that Fleming, when he introduced this last machine, knew of the mortgage on the factory held by Croft, and that the plaintiff was at all times aware of the existence of this mortgage. On December 6, 1876, the plaintiff caused an attach- ment to be levied on the machinery of the factory as the property of Fleming, and on June 12, 1877, Croft, who it seems had taken the possession of the maohinery of the factory, including these four machines, by virtue of his mortgage, liled his bill in equity to foreclose his mortgage. To this suit both Detweiler and Fleming were made parties; but they made no defence, the bill was taken as confessed, and a decree was ordered directing the sale of the machinery of the factory, including these four machines. After the decree was ordered, Detweiler, the plaintiff here, gave express consent to the entry of the decree. Upon that consent a decree was entered directing the sale of the property, and in pursuance of that decree these four machines, with the rest of the machinery of the factory, were sold, and were bought by the defendants. Detweiler, the plaintiff, not only con- sented to the decree, but made no objection to the sale of the machin- ery, and gave no intimation to any one, at any time, of any claim on his part that the right to use the machines did not acompany the possession of the machines. But now he asks this court of equity to interpose to prevent the further use of these machines by the per- sons who bought them at the sale above deseribed, upon the ground that the right to use the machines did not pass to the defendants. In my opinion he is not entitled to such relief. �As I understand the law, when the owner of a patent himself sells a machine constructed for the purpose of using his invention, he is understood to have to that extent parted with his exclusive right to his invention. The sale made of the four machines in question to the defendants was a voluntary sale, so far as Detweiler was con- cerned, for Detweiler was a party to the suit and he gave express consent to their sale. The proceeding was against a large amount of property comprising the machinery of a factory. There was no reservation in the decree of any right in respect to any of the ma- ��� �