infringement, cannot be construed to abridge | v. Cradock, 3 Myl. & C. 94; Gaines v. Maus the power or right of the Government to sue. Foster, Scire Facias, 245, 251, 369. The Government's remedy to repeal the patent covers ground and reaches results which are not covered and cannot be reached in private litigation. Foster, Scire Facias, 243; Arkwright v. Mordaunt, Dav. Pat. Cas. 69; Arkwright v. Nightengale, Id. 37. The Government had no power to grant a patent giving an exclusive privilege to Mr. Bell to enjoy the invention of another. Thomas v. Waters, Hardr. 443, 448. Nor did it have power to make a grant in violation of any law of the land (2 Roll. Abr. 164) or injurious to vested rights. Rex v. Butler, 3 Lev. 220; Walker, Patents, § 178, p. 127. A court of equity will set aside the patent if the law has not been correctly expounded and applied. Rex v. Wilkes, 4 Burr. 2539; Yick Wov. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 369 (30:226); Dynes v. Hoover, 61 U. S. 20 How. 80 (15:844); 2 Whart. Ev. SS 794, 796; Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 282 (23:917). There is nothing in the objection that the action here instituted has not been earlier pros ecuted. Broom, Legal Maxims, 50, and cases there cited; Bacon, Abr. 7th ed. title, Prerogative, E. 6; Sedgwick, Stat. & Const. Law, 106. The objection to the bill, that it does not state the evidence upon which the case is to be made by the Government, is without force. Story, Eq. Pl. S$ 28, 252; St. Louis v. Knapp Co. 104 U. S. 658 (26:883). Recitals preliminary to the statement of the facts upon which the Government asks a judg ment setting aside the patents described in the bill cannot be made the subject of a demurrer. 1 Dan. Ch. Pr. 349. The defendant's demurrer is bad on its face, and must be overruled. It is too general and confused; it is a demurrer to the whole bill, and it is also a demurrer to separate and distinct parts of the bill for and upon like grounds. Story, Eq. Pl. SS 442-444; Dan. Ch. Pr. 584; Brandon Mfg. Co. v. Prime, 14 Blatchf. 371; Heath v. Erie R. Co. 8 Blatchf. 412; Livingston v. Story, 34 U. S. 9 Pet. 632 (9:255); Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 43; Devonsher v. Newenham, 2 Sch. & Lef. 199. In order to procure a judgment of cancellation of the patents, the United States must be plaintiff in an action for that purpose. Gibson v. Ingo, 6 Hare, 112; Mitford, Eq. Pl. 127, 128; Story, Eq. Jur. § 703, note 1. The bill shows on its face that the AttorneyGeneral authorized suit to be brought. U. S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61 (25:93); Doughty v. West, 6 Blatchf. 433. The following are the points and authorities from the brief filed by Mr. Jenks, SolicitorGen., for the appellant: The bill is not multifarious in that it joins allegations and prayers for relief in respect of two patents. 2 Bouv. Law Dict. 261; Story, Eq. Pl. 271, 271 a; Cooper, Eq. Pl. 182; Mitford, Eq. Pl. (by Jeremy) 181; Adams, Eq. 309, 310; Campbell v. Mackay, 1 Myl. & C. 617; Atty-Gen. seaux, 1 Woods, 118; Bedsole v. Monroe, 5 Ired. Eq. 317; Case v. Redfield, 4 McLean, 527; Nourse v. Allen, 4 Blatchf. 377; Gamewell Fire Alarm Teleg. Co. v. Chillicothe, 7 Fed. Rep. 354; Walsham v. Stainton, 1 DeG. J. & S. 691; Am. Bell Teleph. Co. v. Spencer, 8 Fed. Rep. 509; Gaines v. Chew, 43 U. S. 2 How. 642 (11:411); Seymour v. Osborne, 78 U. S. 11 Wall. 534 (20:35); Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 48 (25:74). The second general ground of demurrer is equivalent to a denial of any power in any department of the Government to cancel or de. clare void a patent for an invention issued according to the forms of law. A patent for an invention is a grant. 2 Bouv. Law Dict. 379. It is a franchise. 3 Kent, Com. 458. It is defined at common law, to be a branch of the King's prerogative. 2 Bl. Com. 37. It is property of value. Gayler v. Wilder, 51 U. S. 10 How. 494 (13:511); Brown v. Duchesne, 60 U. S. 19 How. 195 (15:599). The only property right the inventor has is created by the grant. The power to make the grant is contained in the Constitution. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 8. A sovereign has a right to all the remedies to redress wrongs in the courts that a citizen has and, in addition thereto, the rights and privileges that are incident to sovereignty-all of which are held in trust in common for the people. This suit is maintainable on both these grounds. Pa. v. Wheeling & B. Bridge Co. 54 U. S. 13 How. 563 (14: 268). The right of the Government to bring the suit, and the power of the United States Courts to adjudge is sustained by an almost uninterrupted course of judicial decisions in England and in the United States. 4 Coke, Inst. p. 87; 2 Bl. Com. 259, 281; AttyGen. v. Vernon, 1 Vern. 277; Rex v. Butler, 3 Lev. 220; Queen v. Aires, 10 Mod. 258, 354; Lord Proprietary v. Jenings, 1 Har. & McH. 92; Atty-Gen. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 35 Wis. 425; Atty-Gen. v. Albion Academy, 52 Wis. 479, 480; U. S. v. Gunning, 18 Fed. Rep. 511; Mowry v. Whitney, 81 U. S. 14 Wall. 439 (20: 859); U. S. v. Stone, 69 U. S. 2 Wall. 535 (17: 767); U. S. v. Hughes, 52 U. S. 11 How. 568 (13: 816); Field v. Seabury, 60 U. S. 19 How. 324 (15: 651); Hughes v. U. S. 71 U. S 4 Wall. 236 (18: 304); U. S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61 (25:93); U. S. v. Minor, 114 U. S. 233 (29:110); Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 365 (28: 669); Doughty v. West, 6 Blatchf. 433; Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 76 U. S. 9 Wall. 797 (19: 569); 1 Op. Atty-Gen. 458; 4 Op. Atty-Gen. 120; AttyGen, v. Rumford Chemical Works, 2 Bann. & A. 299; U. S. v. San Jacinto Tin Co. 125 U. S. 273 (31:747). The defense of laches does not apply to suits brought by the Government. U. S. v. Kirkpatrick, 22 U. S. 9 Wheat. 735 (6: 203); Dox v. Postmaster-General, 26 U. S. 1 Pet. 324 (7:162); Gaussen v. U. S. 97 U. S. 590 (24: 1009); U. S. v. Minor, 114 U. S. 238 (29: 112). In the application of principles, equity follows the law. Story, Eq. Jur. 13th ed. §§ 13, 15, 19. Points and authorities from the brief of Mr. Charles S. Whitman, for appellant: The right of the Sovereign to recall a franchise when it has been procured by fraud or false suggestion has never been denied. Perpigna on Patents, Paris, 1832; Germany, Law of July 1, 1877, § 3; Italy, Law of 1864, chap. 2; Russia, Code of Laws, Vol. XI, part 11, § 3, chap. 5; Spain, Law of July 30, 1878, § 8; Austria, Law of August 15, 1852, § 6; Belgium, Law of May 24, 1854, art. 26; Turkey, Law of the 20th day of the month Rabia, 1 A. H. 1297, § 4, chap. 2; Sweden, Law of May, 1884, § 23. For the state of the law in regard to the repeal of letters patent for inventions as it existed in England at the date of the colonization of this country, see: Atty-Gen. v. Vernon, 1 Vern. 277; Rex v. Butler, 3 Lev. 220; The Queen v. Aires, 10 Mod. 354; Holroyd, Patents, published in 1830, cites 4 Inst. 72, 88; 3 Lev. 223; 6 Mod. 229; Rex v. Haine, 2 Cox, Eq. Cas. 235; Bull, N. P. 75, 76; Dy. 197; 2 Saund. 72; 1 Ves. Jr. 118; Reg. v. Arkwright, Dav. Pat. Cas. 61; 2 Ventr. 344; 10 Mod. 354. See also Smith, Patents, 30; Hands, Patents, 16; Godson, Patents, 270; Dyer, 276; Coryton, Letters Patent, 164. The usual proceeding to set aside letters patent in England has been by scire facias. Atty-Gen. v. Vernon, 1 Vern. 277, 369. But it seems that an information in equity will lie at the suit of the Crown to set aside letters patent obtained by fraud. The Magdalen College Case, 11 Coke, Rep. 75 a. Grants of exclusive privileges in inventions have always been treated by the courts as standing on the same footing as grants of land. Morgan v. Seaward, Murphy & H. 55; 2 Mees. & W. 544; Drewry, Patents, 4-7. The law as above set forth was applied in the colonial courts. Lord Proprietors v. Gerard, 1 Harr. & McH. 163, 189; Mancius v. Lawton, 10 Johns. 24. Since the organization of the Federal Government the right to annul land patents improperly issued has been repeatedly affirmed by the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Departments of the Goverment. U. S. v. Stone, 69 U. S. 2 Wall. 525 (17: 765). The judiciary committee of the Forty-Ninth Congress reported that it is unquestioned that the supreme court has decided that the United States had full authority to initiate and conduct suits to cancel and annul patents for land obtained from it by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake. Cotton v. U. 8. 52 U. S. 11 How. 229 (13: 675); U. 8. v. Hughes, 52 U. S. 11 How. 552 (13: 809); Field v. Seabury, 60 U. S. 19,How. 323 (15: 650); U. S. v. Stone, 69 U. S. 2 Wall. 525 (17:765); U. 8. v. Minor, 114 U. S. 223 (29: 110). Under the Act of 1790 any person, whether a patentee or not might apply for the repeal of & patent. Stearns v. Barrett, 1 Mason, 164; Delano v. Scott, 1 Gilp. 489; Ex parte Wood, 22 U. S. 9 Wheat. 603 (6:171). It was held by Judge Wallace in United States v. Gunning, 18 Fed. Rep. 511, that there is no distinction between letters patent for an invention and for land, as regards the rights and remedies for vacating them; and this was affirmed by Wheeler, J., in 22 Fed. Rep. 653, and 23 Fed. Rep. 668. In England, both by the common law and the Statute of Monopolies, it is, and always has been, the essential requisite in an art or invention which is made the subject of a patent that it shall be new at the time the patent was granted. Darcy v. Allein, 11 Coke, 84; Clothworkers of Ipswich Case, Godb. 252; Coke, Third Inst. chap. 85, p. 181; Bacon, Abr. titles, Monopoly and Prerogative, f. 4; Shep. Abr. part III, 61; Hawk. P. C. part I, chap. 79, § 2; Shaw v. Cooper, 32 U. S. 7 Pet. 318 (8:698); Coryton, Patents, 41. In Cartwright v. Amatt, 2 Bos. & P. 43, cited in 14 Ves. 131, Lord Eldon said that patents were to be construed as bargains between inventors and the public. Hindmarch, 250; Neilson v. Harford, Web. Pat. Cas. 341. The only appeal that can be taken in the interest of the public from the fraudulent or erroneous action of the officers of the Patent Office is that which is being pursued by the Government in this case. In England, anyone may file a protest against a patent being granted. Hindmarch, Patents, 515. The English Courts, in sustaining proceedings to cancel letters patent for inventions, have always treated such actions as on the same footing as those for avoiding a grant of land from the Crown. Morgan v. Seaward, 1 Web. Pat. Cas. 187. The right to repeal is based on the fact that the patent deprived the citizen of a right or liberty that he had before. Hindmarch, Patents, 235; Drewry, Patents, 4: Hughes v. U. S. 71 U. S. 4 Wall. 232 (18: 303). The case of the Government is stronger in repealing a patent for an invention than in repealing a patent for land. Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 76 U. S. 9 Wall. 788 (19: 566); Corning v. Burden, 56 U. S. 15 How. 270 (14: 691). A bill in chancery will lie to annul a patent obtained by fraud. U. S. v. Frazer, 22 Fed. Rep. 107. To defeat a patent on the ground of public use, it is only necessary that one specimen of the thing invented should have been publicly used; Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U. S. 97 (24: 69); and it is only necessary to prove that one person knew of the use. Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U. S. 336 (26: 756). Defenses which may be set up in an infringement suit offer no protection to the public. Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 708 (26: 279). Smith, Patents, 30; Perpigna, Patents. A patent cannot be impeached by a defendant in an infringement suit for fraud or mis take in its issue. Doughty v. West, 6 Blatchf. 429; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co, 13 Blatchf 275; Mowry v. Whitney, 81 U. S. 14 Wall. 434 (20: 858); Foster v. Lindsay, 2 Bann, & Ard. 175; U. S. v. Colgate, 21 Fed. Rep. 318; Gear v. Grosvenor, 1 Holmes, 215; Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 547; Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 76 U. S. 9 Wall. 788 (19: 566); Phila. W. & B. R. Co. v. Dubois, 79 U. S. 12 Wall. 47 (20: 265); Seymour v. 08borne, 78 U. S. 11 Wall. 516 (20: 33); Eureka C. W. M. Co. v. Bailey W. & W. M. Co. 78 U. S. 11 Wall. 488 (20: 209). A patent can be canceled in the absence of a statute authorizing its cancellation. Grant y. Raymond, 31 U. S. 6 Pet. 218 (8: 876). Messrs. E. N. Dickerson, Chauncey Smith and James J. Storrow, for appellee: Defects of form in the patent or of procedure in procuring it cannot raise such a necessity or such an equity as will support this bill. Butterworth v. U. S. 112 U. S. 50 (28: 656); Grant v. Raymond, 31 U. S. 6 Pet. 218 (8: 376); Kansas City L. & S. K. R. Co. v. Attorney-General, 118 U. S. 682 (30: 281). | Carnochan v. Christie, 24 U. S. 11 Wheat. 446 (6: 516); Bradford v. Union Bank, 54 U. S. 13 How. 57 (14:49); The Siren, 74 U. S. 7 Wall. 154 (19: 130); The Davis, 77 U. S. 10 Wall. 15 (19:875); U. S, v. Union Pac. R. Co. 98 U. S. 569, 607 (25: 143, 152). The exercise of any equity power is limited by the ability of the court to conclusively determine all the controversy. Parrish v. Ferris, 67 U. S. 2 Black, 606 (17: 317; Peirsoll v. Elliott, 31 U. S. 6 Pet. 95 (8: 332); Craig v. Leitensdorfer, 123 U. S. 189 (31: 114); Orton v. Smith, 59 U. S. 18 How. 263 (15:393); Vetterlein v. Barnes, 124 U. S. 169, 172 (31:400); Kerrison v. Stewart, 93 U. 8. 155, 159 (23:843, 845); Weale v. West Middlesex Waterworks Co. 1 Jac. & W. 369; Smith v. Swormstedt, 57 U. S. 16 How. 288, 303 (14:942, 948). A bill to quiet title does not lie unless the right of the plaintiff has been established. Miles v. Caldwell, 69 U. S. 2 Wall. 35 (17: 755); Stark v. Starr, 73 U. S. 6 Wall. 409 (18: If the patentee is the meritorious first invent-926); U. S. v. Wilson, 118 U. S. 89 (30:112); or, justly entitled under the law (Rev. Stat. 4893), there is no equity to support this bill; if he is not, then the patent is void in an infringe ment suit. Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 358 (28: 665, 667); Gardner v. Herz, 118 U. S. 191 (30: 163); Polk v. Wendal, 13 U. S. 9 Cranch, 99 (3: 669); U. S. v. Arredondo, 31 U. S. 6 Pet. 714 (8:556). A bill must allege facts, and not conclusions. Dillon v. Barnard, 88 U. S. 21 Wall. 430 (22: 673); Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Palmes, 109 U. S. 244 (27: 922); Gould v. Evansville & C. R. Co. 91 U. S. 526 (23: 416); Mosher v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. 127 U. S. 390 (32: 249). The plaintiff must rest on the case made by the general frame of his bill, and the court cannot inquire what other grounds of relief he might have marshaled some of his facts to support. Eyre v. Potter, 56 U. S. 15 How. 42 (14:592). A public power which touches great private interests must be exercised. Rock Island Co. v. U. S. 71 U. S. 4 Wall. 435 (18:419); Butterworth v. U. S. supra. The jurisdiction of the court does not depend upon the relief asked, but upon the relief needed. Atchison v. Peterson, 87 U. S. 20 Wall. 508 (22: 414). Courts of equity, as courts, do not sit to investigate, but only to act; and if they cannot act effectively they will not inquire. Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S. 328 (29:206); U. S. v. Union Pac. R. Co. 98 U. S. 589 (25: 143). The plaintiff must state a case within the established rules of equity. Root v. Ry. Co. 105 U. S. 189 (26:975); Gray v. Brignardello, 68 U. S. 1 Wall. 627 (17: 693); U. 8. v. Gomez, 68 U. S. 1 Wall. 690 (17: 677); Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 73 U. S. 6 Wall. 153 (18: 762); Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U. S. 766 (23: 770); Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U. S. 13 Wall. 92 (20:534). This bill does not state a case within any of the recognized heads of equity. A contract brought into court for cancellation may be enforced by a cross bill. Phoenix L. Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 80 U. S. 13 Wall. 616 (20:501); Grand Chute v. Winegar, 82 U. S. 15 Wall. 373 (21:174); Hendrickson v. Hinckley, 58 U. S. 17 How. 443 (15: 123); Hapgood v. Hewett, 119 U. S. 226 (30: 369); Wickliffe v. Owings, 58 U. S. 17 How. 47 (15:44); Holland v. Challen, 110 U. S. 15 (28: 52); Frost v. Spit ley, 121 U. S. 552 (30: 1010); Story v. Livingston, 38 U. S. 13 Pet. 359, 375 (10: 200, 208), Shields v. Barrow, 58 U. S. 17 How. 130, 139 (15:158, 160); Kerrison v. Stewart, 93 U. S. 155, 159 (23:843, 845). No ground for cancellation is stated. Mistake or fraud are the only grounds for canceling a deed. Kerr, Fraud & Mistake, 479; Rooke v. Kensington, 2 Kay & J. 753; Fowler v. Fowler, 4 DeG. & J. 250; Sells v. Sells, 1 Drew & S. 42; Southern Developement Co. v. Silva, 125 U. S. 247 (31: 678); Grymes v. Sanders, 93 U. S. 55 (23: 798); Quinby v. Conlan, 104 U. S. 425 (26: 801); Ming v. Woolfolk, 116 U. S. 599, 602 (29: 740, 741); Slaughter v. Gerson, 80 Ú. S. 13 Wall. 379, 383 (20: 627, 628); Attwood v. Small, 6 Cl. & F. 232. That the patent is void for fraud alone could not prevail against a purchaser without notice. Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U. S. 6 Cranch, 87, 133 (3: 162, 177); U. S. v. Minor, 114 U. S. 239 (29: 112); Col. Coal & I. Co. v. U. S. 123 U. S. 307 (31:182); N. O. C. & B. Co. v. Montgomery, 95 U. S. 16 (24: 346); Calais S. B. Co v. Scudder, 67 U. S. 2 Black, 372 (17:282); Hotchkiss v. National S. & L. Bank, 88 U. S. 21 Wall. 354 (22: 645); Graham v. Boston H. & E. R. Co. 118 U. S. 161, 179 (30:205). Lapse of time and change of circumstances disclose a want of equity fatal to this case. McQuiddy v. Ware, 87 U. S. 20 Wall. 14 (22; 658); Re Broderick's Will, 88 U. S. 21 Wall. 519 (22: 605); Lockwood v. Cleveland, 20 Fed. Rep. 164; Stearns v. Page, 48 U. S, 7 How. 819, 829 (12: 928, 932); Moore v. Greene, 60 U. S. 19 How. 72 (15: 534); Badger v. Badger, 69 U. 8. 2 Wall. 87, 94 (17:836, 838); Harwood v. Cincinnati & O. A. L. R. Co. 84 U. S. 17 Wall. 78 (21:558); Marsh v. Whitmore, 88 U. 8. 21 Wall. 178 (22: 482); Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U. S. 135, 140, 143 (25:807, 808, 809); Lansdale v. Smith, 106 U. S. 391 (27: 219); U. S. v. Throck- The facts of this case are fatal on a general The power invoked does not exist in the executive department nor in the circuit courts. Osborn v. Bank of U. S. 22 U. S. 9 Wheat. 738 (6: 204); Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80, 85 (24: 377, 380); Huse v. Glover, 119 U. S. 543 (30: 487); U. S. v. State Bank, 96 U. S. 30 (24:647). No subject could in any way assail a royal grant. Darcy v. Allein, 11 Coke, 84. The King had a prerogative to recall the grant, and the power to do this was usually reserved in each patent. Hindmarch, 62, 431. The ultimate cancellation depended upon the royal will. No court whatever had power in England to issue such a scire facias. It issued only by royal command. Lansdale v. Smith, and Harwood v. R. Co. Facts which will not affirmatively establish Bein v. Heath, 47 U. S. 6 How. 228 (12:416); Willard v. Tayloe, 75 U. S. 8 Wall. 557 (19: 501,; King v. Daniel, 1 Carpmael, Pat. Cas. 453; 1 Brodix, Pat. Cas. 392; Grant v. Raymond, 31 U. S. 6 Pet. 218 (8: 376); Howe v. Underwood, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 162. Judges should not be officious to destroy a United Tel. Co. v. Harrison, Goodeve, Pat. Equity never interferes to try questions Marquez v. Frisbie, 101 U. S. 473 (25: 800); U. S. v. Atherton, 102 U. S. 372 (26: 213); Smith v. Ely, 56 U. S. 15 How. 143 (14: 636); Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Palmes, 109 U. S. 244 (27: 922); King v. Gallun, 109 U. S. 99, 101 (27:870); Ah Kow v. Nunan, 5 Sawy. 560; Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37 (23: 200); Terhune v. Phillips, 99 U. S. 592 (25: 293). The court knows the fact that there has been fierce litigation about this patent and the results of it. The records of this court are full of such instances of judicial notice. Smith v. Ely, 56 U. S. 15 How. 137 (14; 634): Gregg v. Tesson, 68 U. S. 1 Black, 151 (17: 74); Pensacola Teleg. Co. v. Western Union Teleg. Co. 96 U. S. 1(24: 708); U. S. v. Union_Pac. R. Co. 98 U. S. 569 (25:143); Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700 (25: 496); Wade v. Walnut, 105 U. S. 1 (26:1027), Gilson v. Dayton, 123 U. S. 59 (31; 74); Crow v. Oxford, 119 Ü. S. 215 (30: 388); New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S. 76 (27: 656; La. v. Jumel and Elliott v. Wiltz, 107 U. S. 711 (27: 448). The court takes notice of matters of public knowledge. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Palmes, 109 U. S. 244 (27: 922). Whether two papers describe the same invention is a question the court will decide on demurrer. Powder Co. v. Powder Works, 98 U. S. 126 (25:77). Hindmarch, 381-3, 710, 715, 728, 729, Bynner v. Reg. 9 Q. B. N. S. 523; The Magdalen College Case, 11 Coke, 74; Legať's Case, 10 Coke, A legislative grant cannot be impeached in court for fraud or misrepresentation in procuring it, or on the ground of forfeiture. The Maxwell Land Grant Case, 121 U. S. 325 (30:949); St. Louis 1. M. & S. R. Co. v. McGee, 115 U. S. 469 (29:446); Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U. S. 238 (27: 920); McMicken v. U. S. 97 U. S. 204 (24: 947); Farnsworth v. Minn. & Pac. R. Co. 92 U. S. 49 (23: 530); Schulenberg v. Harriman, 88 U. S. 21 Wall. 44 (22:551); Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U. S. 6 Cranch, 87 (3:162); Hindmarch, Patents, 384. We can find no trace of a bill in equity to cancel a patent for an invention in any of the English books. Attorney-General v. Vernon, 1 Vern. 277; Reg. v. Prosser, 11 Beav. 306. This court has vigorously set its face against the judicial implication of remedies-particularly sovereign remedies. Evans v. Jordan, 13 U. S. 9 Cranch, 199 (3: 704); Rees v. Watertown, 86 U. S. 19 Wall. 107 (22: 72); Heine v. Levee Comrs. 86 U. S. 19 Wall. 656 (22: 223); Thompson v. Allen County, 115 U. S. 550 (29: 472); The Credit Mobilier Case, 98 U. S. 569 (25: 143). The ordinary litigation is sufficient here. Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 708 (26: 279); Mitchell v. Tilghman, 86 U. S. 19 Wall. 287 (22: 125); Ingersoll v. Turner, 7 Fed. Rep. 859; U. S. Stamping Co. v. King, Id. 860; Ex Parte Wood, 22 U. S. 9 Wheat. 603 (6:171). Courts do not possess this prerogative power in the absence of legislation. The sole power about patents for inventions was given to Congress. Hamilton v. Dillin, 88 U. S. 21 Wall. 74 (22: 528); Rees v. Watertown, 86 U. S. 19 Wall. 122 (22:76); Butterworth v. U. S. 112 U. S. 50 (28: 656); The Floyd Acceptances, 74 U. S. 7 Wall. 676 (19: 173); U. S. v. Union Pac. R. Co. 98 U. S. 569 (25:143); Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 17 U. S. 4 Wheat. 235 (4:559); Maryland v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 89 U. S. 22 Wall. 112 (22:714). A court of equity cannot create a remedy without the authority of law. Rees v. Watertown, 86 U. S. 19 Wall. 122 (22:77); U. S. v. Union Pac. R. Co. 91 U. S. 72 (23: 224); Kohl v. U. S. 91 U. S. 367 (23:449); U. S. v. Great Falls Mfg. Co. 112 U. S. 645 (28: 846); Miss. & Run River Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403 (25:206). No prerogative or sovereign powers can be exercised by the circuit courts under the Judiciary Act, nor unless specially conferred. | (20: 134); Carr v. U. S. 98 U. S. 433 (25: 209); The same rule of the necessity of legislation Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168 Specific legislation about patents has forbidden this suit. Heine v. Levee Comrs. 86 U. S. 19 Wall. 655 (22:223); Ex parte Vallandigham, 68 U. S. 1 Wall. 243 (17: 589); Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co. 127 U. S. 265 (32: 239); Georgetown v. Alex-|(26:377). andria Canal Co. 37 U. S. 12 Pet. 91 (9: 1012); Irwin v. Dixion, 50 U. S. 9 How. 27 (13:33); Miller v. Kerr, 20 U. S. 7 Wheat. 1 (5:381); Davenport v. Dodge Co. 105 U. S. 242 (26: 1020); Root v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 105 U. S. 189 (26:975); Pa. v. Wheeling & B. Bridge, 54 U. S. 13 How. 518, 559 (14:249, 266); U. S. v. Union Pac. R. Co. 98 U. S. 569 (25:143); Cotton v. U. S. 52 U. S. 11 How. 229 (13:675). In United States v. Hughes, 52 U. S. 11 How. 552, 568 (13: 809, 816), this court decided that it could not cancel a patent except on the footing of relief to a property owner. See U. S. v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 396 (26: 167); U. S. v. Beebe, 127 U. S. 338 (32:121). The Judiciary Act does not confer upon the courts all those sovereign powers which could be exercised through the judiciary. U. S. v. Union Pac. R. Co. 98 U. S. 569 (25:143). Governing power cannot be used by the courts without an express grant. People v. Ingersoll, 58 N. Y. 1; Atty-Gen. v. The Cy pres Prerogative. No federal court has this power in any form for a grant of the broadest equity powers does not confer it. Phila. Baptist Asso. v. Hart, 17 U. S. 4 Wheat. 1 (4:499); Wheeler v. Smith, 50 U. S. 9 How. 55 (13:44); Vidal v. Girard, 43 U. S. 2 How. 127 (11:205); Fontain v. Ravenel, 58 U. S. 17 How. 369 (15:80); Perin v. Carey, 65 U. S. 24 How. 465 (16:701); Russell v. Allen, 107 U. S. 163, 169 (27-397, 399). The fact that the extensive legislation about patents does not confer the power, forbids it. Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 125 U. S. 465 (31:700); Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 652 (28:274). When Congress has acted by the Judiciary Act, then the supreme court has what power that Act confers and no more. Ex parte Gordon, 66 U. S. 1 Black, 503 (17:134); Ex parte McCardle, 74 U. S. 7 Wall. 506 (19: 264). As to relations of the war powers of the Executive to legislation, see: Mechanics Bank v. Union Bank, 89 U. S. 22 Wall. 276, 295, 297 (22:871, 872, 873); Hamilton v. Dillin, 88 U. S. 21 Wall. 73 (22: 528); Ex parte Milligan, 71 U. S. 4 Wall. 2 (18: 281); Brown v. US. 12 U. S. 8 Cranch, 110 (3: 504); Conrad v. Waples, 96 U. S. 279 (24: 721). The exercise of sovereign powers in court does not belong to the Executive. U. S. v. McLemore, 45 U. S. 4 How. 286 (11:977); The Davis, 77 U. S. 10 Wall. 15 (19: 875); Case v. Terrell, 78 U. S. 11 Wall. 199 Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 125 U. The legislation of 1790 and 1793. The decisions under these statutes about the power to cancel were the following: Grant v. Raymond, 31 U. S. 6 Pet. 218 (8: 376); Ex parte Wood, 22 U. S. 9 Wheat. 603 (6:171). Butterworth v. U. S. 112 U. S. 50 (28: 656), establishes the rules which govern all questions of power in the administration of the patent system. The following cases contain all the judicial expressions on the subject: Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 76 U. S. 9 Wall. 811 (19: 589); Mowry v. Whitney, 81 U. S. 14 Wall. 620, 434 (20: 860, 858); Miss. v. Johnson, 71 U. S. 4 Wall. 500 (18: 441); Merserole v. Union Paper Collar Co. 6 Blatchf. 356; U. S. v. Doughty, 7 Blatchf. 424. Neither the Attorney-General nor any court can assail a legislative grant. It cannot be attacked for the grossest frauds in procuring it, unless the Legislature has given express power to do so. Schulenberg v. Harriman, 88 U. S. 21 Wall. 44 (22: 551); St. Louis I. M. & S. R. Co. v. McGee, 115 U. S. 469 (29: 446); McMicken v. U. S. 97 Ú. S. 204 (24: 947); Farnsworth v. Minnesota & Pac. R. Co. 92 U. S. 49 (23: 530); Ryan v. Carter, 93 U. S. 78 (23: 807); Tameling v. U. S. Freehold & Emigrant Co. 93 U. S. 644 (23:998); Slidell v. Grandjean, 111 U. S. 439 (28: 330); Whitney v. Morrow, 112 U. S. 693 (28:871); The Maxwell Land-Grant Case, 121 U. S. 325, 366 (30:949, 953); U. S. v. Frazer, 22 Fed. Rep. 106; U. 8.v. Colgate, 32 Fed. Rep. 624. Preliminary injunctions to restrain litigation pending a suit to cancel a patent under the interference section 4918, cannot be entertained against a sustained patent. Asbestos Felting Co. v. U. S. & F. S. F. Co. 12 Blatchf. 453; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. 13 Blatchf. 375; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354 (28:665). There can be no equity to support a bill to cancel a sustained patent on grounds which are open in an infringement suit. Smith v. McIver, 22 U. S. 9 Wheat. 534 (6: 153); Miles v. Caldwell, 69 U. S. 2 Wall. 35 (17: 755); Mt. Zion v. Gilman, 9 Biss. 479; Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 76 U. S. 9 Wall. 788 (19:566); U. S. v. Frazer, 22 Fed. Rep. 106. Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of [349] the court: This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of |