Opinion of the Court. on six thousand burners, not on account of competition in burners, but because of the effect upon his particular burner created by the sale of fourteen of the same kind, and of one hundred differing but the same in principle. Conceding that as Gräff granted no licenses, and had no established license fee, but supplied the demand for his burner himself, and was able to supply that demand, and that, therefore, if he was compelled to lower the price by the infringement he could recover for the loss thus sustained, does the evidence satisfactorily establish that the reduction in prices was due solely to the acts of the defendants in infringing? The opinion of Mr. and Mrs. Gräff to that effect is not sufficient, and even that is so qualified as to fall far short of expressing it. The master allowed upon 3070 burners sold at wholesale, and on 2870 sold at retail, by the complainants, between March 1, 1886, and October 31, 1887, or 5940 in all. The sales of one hundred and four out of the one hundred and fourteen sold by the respondents apparently took place prior to the filing of the bill. Boesch had been in the business for twenty years. The firm of Boesch & Bauer carried a large stock of lamps, embracing a hundred varieties in styles and sizes, under a very large variety of names. Gräff's burner was a "mitrailleuse" burner, and called "Diamond" as the Miller burner was. Boesch testified that there was no difference between the selling price of the Hecht, the Miller, and the Boesch burners; that there was no demand in their trade for a mitrailleuse burner with a cap; and that in his judgment the Boesch burner was better than the Hecht. This evidence may properly be considered in connection with the fact that but one hundred and fourteen were sold. We cannot concur with the conclusion that the result of the sales of the one hundred and fourteen burners was to keep Gräff's prices for his particular burner down from March 1, 1886, to October 31, 1887. If Boesch and Bauer had a burner which satisfied the public just as well as Gräff's, and which they could sell cheaper, Gräff cannot complain of the consequences. If Gräff's burner was so much better than Opinion of the Court. any other that the public must have it he could make his own price, and, if within the bounds of reason, find a sufficient market. In the state of the case disclosed by this record, the complainants must be content with the protection of an injunction and a recovery of the profits realized from the infringing sales. The decree is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. Ordered that Rule 32 of the Rules of this Court is stricken out and the following is promulgated as Rule 32: 32. WRITS OF ERROR AND APPEALS UNDER THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 25, 1889, CHAPTER 236. Cases brought to this Court by writ of error or appeal, under the Act of February 25, 1889, Chapter 236, where the final judgment or decree rendered by the Circuit Court does not exceed the sum' of five thousand dollars, will be advanced on motion, and heard under the rules prescribed by Rule 6 in regard to motions to dismiss writs of error and appeals. Promulgated March 10, 1890. ORDER. Ordered that subdivision 4 of Rule 23 of this Court is amended so as to read as follows: 4. In cases in admiralty, damages and interest may be allowed if specially directed by the court. Promulgated March 10, 1890. II. ASSIGNMENT TO CIRCUITS. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. OCTOBER. TERM, 1889. ORDER. There having been an Associate Justice of this Court appointed since the commencement of this term, it is ordered that the following allotment be made of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of said court among the Circuits, agreeably to the act of Congress in such case made and provided, and that such allotment be entered of record, viz.: For the First Circuit, HORACE GRAY, Associate Justice. For the Second Circuit, SAMUEL BLATCHFORD, Associate Justice. March 10, 1890. |