Nourse v. Allen. improvements entering into the construction of what is claimed to be a perfect reaper. These improvements, as patented, are not limited to the improvement of any particular machine, but are intended to be used in any or all of this class. Nor are the improvements, as they enter into the construction of the machine, necessarily connected together, in practical operation and use. Any one or more of them may be omitted. Hence, it is argued, that the bill sets up distinct and independent matters, wholly unconnected, by reason whereof the defendant is compelled, in his answer, to unite different and distinct matters, depending upon different and distinct proofs, thus complicating and embarrassing the defence. It is, undoubtedly, true, that the four different patents set forth in the bill, upon which the defendant is sought to be enjoined, and for the alleged infringements of which damages are claimed, call for separate and distinct defences; and the objection to the bill on the ground of multifariousness would, in a general sense, seem to be well founded, within the settled rules of Equity pleading. But, on looking at the case made in the bill, I am inclined to think the objection not maintainable. The bill charges, that the machine made and used by the defendant, and sought to be enjoined, contains all the improvements embraced in the several patents, and, hence, the act of making, vending or using a single machine constitutes an infringement of all of them. The several improvements being capable of a connected use, and being thus connected by the defendant, the convenience of both parties, as well as a saving of expense in the litigation, would seem to be consulted in embracing all the patents in one suit. A Court of Chancery allows distinct and separate causes of complaint between the same parties to be joined in one suit, in order to avoid multiplicity of actions, unless it is apparent that the defence will be seriously embarrassed by confounding different and unconnected issues and proofs in the litigation. In this case, although the defences, as respects the several improvements, may be different and unconnected, yet, according to the allegations in the bill, so far as the question of making, Crocker v. Redfield. vending or using the machine is concerned, the infringement of all the patents is involved, and to this extent, they are connected with each other. I agree that, if one of these improvements had been charged to have been used upon one machine, and another upon a different machine, there would have been much force in the objections taken to the bill. But, in the aspect in which the case is thus presented, I think they are not well founded. It has not been unusual, in actions at law, in cases of alleged infringements of patents, to count upon two or more patented improvements upon the same machine. II. It is also objected, that the bill does not set forth a complete title in the plaintiffs to the several patents. The pleader has set out a deduction of the title by numerous assignments, which make the question of title exceedingly complicated; but, as far as I have been able to look into it, I have discovered no defect. I think this deduction of title unnecessary, and that a simple averment that the title to the patents was vested in the plaintiffs would have been sufficient. Such an averment is found in this bill, in addition to the special title set forth. The demurrer is overruled, and the defendant is directed to answer. EBEN B. CROCKER AND OTHERS VS. HEMAN J. REDFIELD. Chinese coin known in China as "copper cash," composed of copper and lead, and copper and nickel, and used in China as money by count, is not entitled to be imported into this country free of duty, under Schedule I of the tariff Act of July 30th, 1846 (9 U. S. Stat. at Large, 49) as "coins, gold, silver and copper," unless it is imported to be used as a part of the currency of this country, or is, at the time of its importation, a part of such currency. Otherwise, it is chargeable with a duty of five per cent., under Schedule H of said Act, as "copper, when old, and fit only to be re-manufactured." Where money is paid for duties on imports, before a protest against such pay. ment is made, the duties cannot be recovered back. Crocker v. Redfield. And, where money is deposited with a Collector of customs, wherewith to pay the duties when they shall be ascertained, and the duties are afterwards ascertained, and then a protest is made against the payment, the protest is too late, the money not having been paid compulsorily. in order to get possession of the goods. (Before NELSON, J., Southern District of New York, October 14th, 1859.) THIS was an action against the Collector of the port of New York, to recover alleged excesses of duties paid under protest, on a shipment of Chinese coin, and on a shipment of jute. Almon W. Griswold, for the plaintiffs. Charles H. Hunt, (Assistant District Attorney,) for the defendant. NELSON, J. The coin shipped was one thousand boxes, and is described in the invoices as "copper cash." It appears, from the evidence in the case, that this description of coin, at the time of the importation from China, passed in that country by count as money, and was known by the designation of copper cash," being the only coin in China; and that the pieces were composed of 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of copper, and 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of lead or nickel. The plaintiffs claim that the article was entitled to be imported into this country free of duty, under Schedule I of the tariff Act of July 30th, 1846, (9 U. S. Stat. at Large, 49,) within the words "coins, gold, silver and copper." The Collector claims that it fell under the description in Schedule H, “ copper when old and fit only to be re-manufactured," and was chargeable with a duty of five per cent. The purpose for which the coin was imported is nowhere stated in the case. Some light might, I think, have been thrown upon the question, if evidence had been given on this point; for, I am inclined to think that the clause in the free list has reference to coins that are imported into the country for circulation as money. Inasmuch as no such purpose Crocker v. Redfield. appears in respect to the coin in question, and no inference can be drawn to this effect from the description or designation of the article, the better opinion is, that it has been properly arranged under Schedule H, within the terms above referred to. At least, in my view of the clause in the free list, I am of opinion, that the article in question cannot be brought within it, without first proving that it was imported to be used as part of the currency of the country, or that it was, at the time of the importation, a part of such currency. As it respects the excess of duty claimed to be recovered upon the shipment of jute, it is a sufficient answer to say that the protest is defective. It appears, on the face of it, that the money was paid, and in the hands of the Collector, before the protest was made against the payment of the duty and the penalty. There is no date to it, but the inference is unavoidable from the facts stated in it. Indeed, a balance is still in the hands of the Collector, of $92.85. It is said, that the money was only deposited with the Collector as a security for the payment of the duties when ascertained, and that the application did not take place till the ascertainment of the duties. Admitting this to be so, I do not agree to the consequence claimed. The money deposited was to be applied by the Collector to the duties, and it cannot be said, after this, that it was paid compulsorily, in order to get possession of the goods. The protest, after the duties were ascertained, came too late. I do not think that the suit should be sustained for the $92.85, as that sum was tendered to the plaintiffs before suit brought. They knew, at all times after the ascertainment of the duties, that that sum was ready for them. Judgment for defendant. Riess v. Redfield. ENOCH RIESS AND OTHERS v8. HEMAN J. REDFIELD. Where the usual charge for commissions on goods purchased in China was two per cent. Held, that it was erroneous for the Custom-House, on the entry of such goods in this country, on their importation, to increase the charge for commissions. The market value at the port of exportation is to be taken as the price of the goods, and, where a purchaser has had a discount allowed to him on his purchase, he is not entitled to have such discount deducted from the invoice value of the goods. Where the appraisers, on the entry of goods, did not raise their invoice value, but added thereto an arbitrary and fictitious charge for export duty at the port of exportation: Held, that such addition was erroneous. (Before NELSON, J., Southern District of New York, October 14th, 1859.) THIS was an action against the Collector of the port of New York, to recover back an excess of duties paid under protest. Almon W. Griswold, for the plaintiffs. Charles H. Hunt, (Assistant District Attorney,) for the defendant. NELSON, J. The goods in this case were imported from China. No question has been made upon the invoice value at the port of shipment. The objections are confined to the additional charges made at the Custom-House, thereby increasing the dutiable value. 1. The first is, that one-half of one per cent. was added to the charge for commissions in China, making them two and one-half per cent., when the usual rate is only two per cent. The proof in the case is full, that two per cent. only was charged, and that it is the usual rate of commissions. It was error, therefore, to add the one-half of one per cent. 2. It is objected, that the Collector erred in striking from |