Statement of the Case. the debatable questions presented in respect to this receipt or release, we are of opinion that the Circuit Court of Appeals was right in refusing to uphold it. There is nothing else in the case that seems to us to call for consideration. We find no error in the conclusions of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and its decree is Affirmed. Dissenting: MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, MR. JUSTICE GRAY, MR. JUSTICE BROWN and MR. JUSTICE WHITE. MAST, FOOS & CO. v. STOVER MANUFACTURING COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 149. Argued February 1, 2, 1900.- Decided April 23, 1900. There is no obligation on the part of courts in patent causes to follow the prior adjudications of other courts of coördinate jurisdiction, particularly if new testimony be introduced varying the issue presented to the prior court. Comity is not a rule of law, but one of practice, convenience and expediency. It requires of no court to abdicate its individual judgment, and is applicable only where, in its own mind, there may be a doubt as to the soundness of its views. Patent No. 433,531, granted to Mast, Foos & Company upon the application of Samuel W. Martin, for an improvement in windmills was anticipated by prior devices, and is invalid. Under the state of the art it required no invention to adapt to a windmill the combination of an internal toothed spur wheel with an external toothed pinion, for the purpose of converting a revolving into a reciprocating motion. Where a case is carried by appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals from an order granting a temporary injunction, it is within the power of that court to dismiss the bill, if there be nothing in the affidavits tending to throw doubt upon the existence or date of the anticipating devices, and, giving them their proper effect, they establish the invalidity of the patent. THIS was a writ of certiorari to review a decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing a bill in equity brought for Statement of the Case. the infringement of a patent, and appealed to that court from an order of the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois, granting a preliminary injunction. The bill was filed by the petitioner, Mast, Foos & Company, an Ohio corporation, and was founded upon letters patent No. 433,531, granted to the petitioner, upon the application of one Samuel W. Martin, for an improvement in windmills. In his specification the patentee states that the "invention consists, essentially, of an improved back gear organization involving an external toothed pinion, and an internal toothed spur gear, the pinion being mounted on the wheel shaft, and the gear having formed on or connected with it the wrist pin, to which the operating pitman is attached, whereby the speed of the main shaft as applied to the wrist pin and pitman is reduced, and whereby, also, all pounding and lost motion is prevented as the pitman connection passes over the center and changes from a pushing to a pulling action. This object is accomplished by the fact that a plurality of the pinion teeth are always engaged with the internal spur gear, resulting in giving a perfectly uniform and smooth and noiseless reciprocating motion to the actuating rod, thereby prolonging the life of the machine by saving it from constant jarring and preventing wear and tear." "The freedom of the organization from lost motion and sudden jerks as the wrist pin passes over the center renders the operation of the pump smooth and regular. This increases the effectiveness of the pump and prevents undue wear and tear." The following diagram illustrates the patented combination: Counsel for Parties. Petitioner sought a recovery only upon the first claim: "1. The combination, with a windmill driving shaft and a pinion thereon, of an internal toothed spur wheel mounted adjacent to the said shaft and meshing with said pinion, a pitman connected with the spur wheel, and an actuating rod connected with the pitman." Almost immediately upon filing the bill motion was made for a preliminary injunction, which was granted, largely upon the authority of an opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the case of Mast, Foos & Co. v. The Dempster Mill Manufacturing Co., 82 Fed. Rep. 327. An appeal was taken from that order to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which not only reversed the order for the injunction, but dismissed the bill. 85 Fed. Rep. 782; 60 U. S. App. 325. Whereupon petitioner applied for and was granted a writ of certiorari from this court. Mr. H. A. Toulmin and Mr. Lysander Hill for Mast, Foos & Co. Mr. Charles K. Offield and Mr. Charles C. Linthicum for the Stover Manufacturing Company. Mr. Loren L. Morrison was on their brief. Opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE BROWN, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. 1. Plaintiff complains of the action of the Circuit Court of Appeals in refusing to follow the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a case of this same plaintiff against the Dempster Mill Manufacturing Company, 49 U. S. App. 508, and in reversing the order of the Circuit Court, which, upon the ground of comity, followed the judgment of that court with respect to the validity and scope of the patent. Its contention is, practically, that the Circuit Court of Appeals should have been governed by the prior adjudication of that court, and, so far at least as concerned the interlocutory motion, should have accorded it the same force and dignity as is accorded to judg ments of this court. Premising that these considerations can have no application in this court-whose duty it is to review the judgments of all inferior courts, and in case of conflict to decide between them we think the plaintiff overstates somewhat the claims of comity. Comity is not a rule of law, but one of practice, convenience and expediency. It is something more than mere courtesy, which implies only deference to the opinion of others, since it has a substantial value in securing uniformity of decision, and discouraging repeated litigation of the same question. But its obligation is not imperative. If it were, the indiscreet action of one court might become a precedent, increasing in weight with each successive adjudication, until the whole country was tied down to an unsound principle. Comity persuades; but it does not command. It declares not how a case shall be decided, but how it may with propriety be decided. It recognizes the fact that the primary duty of every court is to dispose of cases according to the law and the facts; in a word, to decide them right. In doing so, the judge is bound to determine them according to his own convictions. If he be clear in those convictions, he should follow them. It is only in cases where, in his own mind, there may be a doubt as to the soundness of his views that comity comes in play and suggests a uniformity of ruling to avoid confusion, until a higher court has settled the Opinion of the Court. law. It demands of no one that he shall abdicate his individual judgment, but only that deference shall be paid to the judgments of other coördinate tribunals. Clearly it applies only to questions which have been actually decided, and which arose under the same facts. The obligation to follow the decisions of other courts in patent cases of course increases in proportion to the number of courts which have passed upon the question, and the concordance of opinion may have been so general as to become a controlling authority. So, too, if a prior adjudication has followed a final hearing upon pleadings and proofs, especially after a protracted litigation, greater weight should be given to it than if it were made upon a motion for a preliminary injunction. These are substantially the views embodied in a number of wellconsidered cases in the Circuit Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeals. Macbeth v. Gillinder, 54 Fed. Rep. 169; Electric Manufacturing Co. v. Edison Electric Light Co., 61 Fed. Rep. 834; S. C., 18 U. S. App. 637; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Beacon Vacuum Pump & Electrical Co., 54 Fed. Rep. 678, and cases cited; Beach v. Hobbs, 82 Fed. Rep. 916; S. C., 63 U. S. App. 626; see, also, Newall v. Wilson, 2 De Gex, M. & G. 282. Comity, however, has no application to questions not considered by the prior court, or, in patent cases, to alleged anticipating devices which were not laid before that court. As to such the action of the court is purely original, though the fact that such anticipating devices were not called to the attention of the prior court is likely to open them to suspicion. It is scarcely necessary to say, however, that when the case reaches this court we should not reverse the action of the court below if we thought it correct upon the merits, though we were of opinion it had not given sufficient weight to the doctrine of comity. 2. The principal mechanism of an ordinary pumping windmill is directed to the conversion of the rapid rotation of the wind wheel into the perpendicular reciprocating movement of an ordinary pumping shaft. This is accomplished in much the same way that the revolution of a water wheel is made to operate an upright saw, namely, by means of a pitman—of different |