bly  be  required  to  depend,  and  as  it  was  deemed  to  be
too  uncertainly  presented  to  be  disposed  of  on  the
affidavits,  the  court  considered  it  to  be  its  duty  to
order  a  reference  upon  which  the  evidence  could  be
orally  produced  before  the  referee  affecting  the  rights
of  the  parties.  This  reference  was  authorized  by  section
1016  of  the  Code  of  the  Civil  Procedure.  It  was  such
a  question  of  fact,  and  so  important  in  its  character,
as  could  satisfactorily  be  determined  in  no  other  way.
The  injunction  itself,  so  far  as  it  restrained  the
n  defendants  "from  putting  up  or  in  use,  imple-
ments, machines  contrivances,  inventions,  appli-
ance, or  any  of  them,  pertaining  to  said  patents  and
system,  in  any  way  whatsoever,"  was  made  without
authority.  Its  object  was  to  prevent  an  infringement
of  the  x)atented  invention  by  the  defendants,  and  that
the  State  courts  have  no  authority  to  do  (De  Witt  v.
Elmira,  &c.  Co.,  66  N.  T.  459).  The  courts  of  the
United  States  have  been  invested  with  exclusive  juris-
diction over  that  subject,  and  it  cannot  be  exercised
by  the  courts  of  the  States.
So  much  of  the  injunction  order  as  provides  for  this
restraint  should  be  vacated,  and,  as  so  modified,  the
order  should  be  affirmed,  with  costs  to  abide  the  event
of  the  motion.
Davis,  P.  J.,  concurred.
188  CIVIL    PROCEDURE    REPORTS.
Moorebead  p.  Holden.
MOOREHEAD,  Respondent,  v.  HOLDEN,
Appellant.
CiTT  Court  of  New  York,  General  Term,
December,  1884.
§§  1346,  1347.
Appeal, — When  judgment  not  reviewed  on  facte,  —  What  gueetion  to  he
determined  hy  jury. — Proof  of  hnofoledge  in  action  for  deceit.
