relief which they can only obtain in a court of equity, and
that the said defendants, who are plaintiffs as aforesaid in
the said action at law, may be perpetually enjoined from fur-
ther prosecuting the same, and that it may be declared that
the said lands are charged with a trust in favor of, and ought
to be held for, the use and benefit of, etc., and that the said
defendants, or so many and such of them as shall appear to
have the legal title to said lands, may be decreed to convey
such legal title, free of all encumbrances done or suffered by
them, or any or either of them unto the plaintiffs, in their
said capacity, to hold to them and their, etc., upon the trusts
aforesaid, and for such further or other relief as the nature
of this case may require, and to your honors shall seem meet,
i (1) Earl v. Wood, 8 Cush. 430.
Prayer for Attorney's Fees.
Plaintiff prays that the amounts due and owing and unpaid
for the compensation, expenses and counsel fees may be
icharged and determined, and that payment of so much there-
FORMAL PARTS OF A BILL. 515
of as shall be due from and by the said defendants, or any of
them, may be decreed by this court; that plaintiff may be
indemnified and saved harmless from all loss, expenses and
counsel fees aforesaid ; that the signers of the agreement
aforesaid may be compelled to pay off and discharge the ex-
penses, compensation and counsel fees aforesaid so that plain-
tiff may be relieved from any obligation thereon or liability
Prayer in Bill of Interpleader. (1)
Plaintiff prays that the said defendants may be decreed to
interpleacl together, and that it may be ascertained in such
manner as this honorable court shall direct to which of them
the said sum of money ought to be paid; and that plaintiff
may have leave to pay the same into court, which he offers
to do, for the benefit of such of the parties as shall be found
or decreed to be entitled thereto ; and that the said persons be
in the meantime restrained from commencing or prosecuting
any suit at law against plaintiff in his said capacity touching
the said sum of money.
(1) As to interpleader, see Foster's Fed. Prac., 5th ed., Sees. 157 and
158; Daniell's Ch. Pr., 5 Am. Ed., p. 1560; Killian v. Ebbinghaus, 110 U. S.
568, 28 L. Ed. 246; Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Miner, 25 Fed. 533; Mc-
Whirter v. Halsted, 24 Fed. 828; Aetna Nat. Bank v. U. S. Life Ins.
Co.. 25 Fed. 531 ; Penn. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Union Trust Co., 83 Fed.
Prayer in Bill of Interpleader by an Executor.
Wherefore plaintiff prays that the said several defendants
may be decreed to interplead and state their several claims
upon plaintiff in the execution of his said trust as executor,
so that the court may adjudge whether a sufficient sum shall
be taken from the assets of the estate in the hands of plain-
516 SUITS IN EQUITY.
tiff to pay said mortgage debt and the interest thereon, or
whether the same shall be paid to the defendants claiming
under the residuary clause of said will.
Prayer for a Guardian ad litem.
Plaintiff prays that a guardian ad litem be appointed for
E. S., the infant defendant named above.
Prayer for a Conveyance and Deed by Special Master.
. Plaintiff prays that a good and perfect deed of conveyance
may be made to him for the premises aforesaid ; and that a
commissioner may be appointed by the court to make and
execute such deed, or that the master in chancery of this
court be directed to execute the same.
Prayer for Writ of Ne Exeat. (1)
Wherefore plaintiff prays the court to grant him a writ of
ne exeat republica, restraining and forbidding the said C. D.,
defendant hereinbefore named, from departing beyond the
limits of the United States without leave of this court first
(1) See Judicial Code, Sec. 261; Desty's Fed. Proc., Sec. 237, and cases
there cited; Foster's Fed. Prac., 5th ed., Sees. 326-328.
Prayer for Writ of Certiorari.(l)
May it please your honors, therefore, to grant unto plain-
tiff a writ of certiorari, to be directed to the judges of the
said court of - , thereby commanding them upon the
FORMAL PARTS OF A BILL. 517
receipt of the said writ to certify and remove the said bill
and all proceedings thereon into this honorable court; and to
stand to and abide such order and direction as to your honors
shall seem meet, and the circumstances of the case require.
(1) Foster's Fed. Prac., 5th ed., Sec. 260.
Prayer for Subpoena.
May it please your honors to grant unto the plaintiff a
writ of subpoena, to be directed to the said C. D. (1), etc.,
thereby commanding them, and each of them, at a certain
time, and under a certain penalty therein to be limited, per-
sonally to appear before this honorable court [or, your honors
in this honorable court], and then and there full, true, direct,
and perfect answer make to all and singular the premises,
and further to stand to, perform and abide such further or-
der, direction and decree therein as to this honorable court
[or, to your honors] shall seem meet [or, as shall seem agree-
able to equity and good conscience]. (2)
(1) The prayer for subpoena must contain the names of all the de-
fendants. See Equity Rule, 12; Beach's Modern Eq. Prac., Sec. 94
and notes ; Foster's Fed. Prac., 5th ed., Sees. 160-167.
(2) The words in italics must be omitted in bills merely for discovery,
or, to perpetuate the testimony of witnesses. Story Eq. PI., Sec. 44,
note ; Barton's Suit in Eq. 43, note 1 ; Equity Drafts, 6.
Prayer for Process Where the Government is a Defendant.
And may it please your honors that the district attorney
of the United States for the district of , on being at-
tended with a copy of this bill, may appear and put in his
answer thereto, and may stand to and abide such order,/ direc-
tion and decree in the premises as to your honors shall seem
518 SUITS IN EQUITY.
Signature of Bills.
All bill? must be signed by counsel. See 24th Rule in
Equity; Beach's Modern Eq. Prac., Sec. 84, and cases cited;
Foster's Fed. Prac., 5 ed., Sec. 155, and cases cited. Signa-
ture on the back of the bill has been held sufficient. Dwight
v. Humphreys, 3 McLean, 104.
Verification (1) by Officer of Corporation Plaintiff.
State of Delaware,
County of Newcastle :
Alexis I. Du Pont, being duly sworn, deposes and says that
he is secretary of the E. I. du Pont de Nemours Powder
Company, one of the above-named plaintiffs ; that he has read
the foregoing bill of complaint and knows the contents there-
of; that the same is true of his own knowledge except as to
matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to
those matters he believes it to be true.
ALEXIS I. Du PONT.
Sworn to before me this 3rd day of July, 1914.
[Seal.] P. E. STRICKLAND,
My commission expires May 24, 1918.
State of Delaware,
County of Newcastle :
R. R. M. Carpenter, being duly sworn, deposes and says
that he is president of the Du Pont Fabrikoid Company, one
of the above-named plaintiffs; that he has read the foregoing
bill of complaint and knows the contents thereof; that the
FORMAL PARTS OF A BILL. 519
same is true of his own knowledge except as to matters there-
in stated on information and belief, and as to those matters
he believes it to be true. R. R. M. CARPENTER.
Sworn to before me this 3rd day of July, 1914.
[Seal.] P. E. STRICKLAND,
My commission expires May 24, 1918.
(1) Eq. R. 25, paragraph fifth, requires verification by the oath of the
plaintiff or some one else having knowledge of the facts, if special relief
is desired pending the suit.
Here an officer of the corporation plaintiff verifies.
"The fact that special relief is prayed puts the bill in the category of
those which must be verified in accordance with Rule 25" and a verifica-
tion by the attorney in fact for the plaintiff is insufficient where he
swears that "so far as the statements in said bill are within his own
knowledge, they are true, and so far as they are predicated upon informa-
tion from others he believes them to be true," for the statement is so
indefinite as to be valueless.
Here preliminary injunction was asked, which was not subsequently
insisted on, yet the rule relating to prayer for special relief applied.
Scheuerle v. Onepiece Bifocal Lens Co., 241 Fed. 270. 273.
Equity Rule 36 provides for verification of bill or other pleading
before certain named officers ; and Rule 69 provides for verification of
petition for rehearing.
Verification by Copartnership.
State of New York,
County of New York,
Arend H. Weingardt, being duly sworn, says that he is a
member of the firm of Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne, the com-
plainants in the foregoing bill ; that the complainants are co-
partners pleading together and that he is authorized to make
verification on behalf of his co-partners as well as on behalf
of himself. That he has heard read the foregoing bill and
knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true to his
own knowledge except as to matters therein stated to be
alleged on information and belief and that as to those matters
520 SUITS IN EQUITY.
he believes it to be true, except that the membership of said
firm and their citizenship is set forth as of the time when the
suit was instituted. AREND H. WEINGARDT.
Sworn to before me this 19th day of December, 1914.
[L. S.] FRANK F. KIRK PATRICK,
Notary Public, N. Y. Co.
Verification of Amended Intervening Petition and Cross-
Charles F. Bisett, being duly sworn, states on oath that he
is one of the intervenors and cross-petitioners in the fore-
going cause; that he has read the above and foregoing
amended intervening petition and cross-petition, and knows
the contents thereof, and that the matters and things therein
set forth are true as he is informed and verily believes.
CHAS. F. BISETT.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of Oc-
tober, 1914. ETHEL K. CHILDERS,
[Seal.] Notary Public.
Verification of a Member of a Partnership.
State of Missouri, County of Jackson, ss:
A. Danciger, being first duly sworn, upon his oath states:
that he is one of the plaintiffs in the above entitled cause
and a member of the co-partnership composed of Dan Dan-
ciger, A. Danciger, Jack Danciger, Joseph Danciger and M.
O. Danciger, doing business as Danciger Bros., Harvest King
Distilling Company and Schiller Bros. Distilling Company,
the plaintiffs in this action, and that he is authorized to and
makes this affidavit in behalf of said plaintiffs; that he has
read the foregoing bill; that he is familiar with the matters,
FORMAL PARTS OF A BILL. 521
allegations and facts set out therein, and that the same are
true to his certain knowledge. A. DANCIGER.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of June,
1914. MARY A. COLLIER,
[Seal.] Notary Public.
My commission expires Feb. 19, 1917.
Verification by a Solicitor.
E. C. Day, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and
says that he is one of the solicitors for the plaintiffs above
named; that each of said plaintiffs is a foreign corporation
and has no officer or agent within the state of Montana,
wherefore he makes this verification for and on behalf of said
plaintiffs and as their said solicitor; that he has read the fore-
going bill of complaint and knows the contents thereof, and
that the matters therein stated are true to the best of his
knowledge, information and belief. E. C. DAY.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of July,
1916. T. A. M.,
[Seal.] Notary Public, &c.
522 SUITS IN EQUITY.
BILLS IN SPECIAL CASES.
Bill to Restrain Disclosures and Use of Trade Secrets.(l)
1. E. I. du Pont de Nemours Powder Company, a cor-
poration of the state of New Jersey, and a citizen of said
state, and having its principal office at 51 Newark street, in
the city of Hoboken, county of Hudson, and state of New
Jersey, and an office and place of business in the city of Wil-
mington, county of Newcastle, and state of Delaware; and
Dupont Fabrikoid Company, a corporation of the state of
Delaware, and a citizen of said state, and having its principal
office in the city of Wilmington, county of Newcastle, and
state of Delaware : bring this their bill of complaint against
Walter E. Masland, Charles FL Masland, Maurice H. Mas-
land, Charles W. Masland, Frank E. Masland and J. Wesley
Masland, all citizens of the state of Pennsylvania, and resid-
ing in the city and county of Philadelphia, in the state of
Pennsylvania, within the eastern district of Pennsylvania.
2. This is a suit in equity between citizens of different
states to restrain the disclosure and use of trade secrets, the
value of which exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the
sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000), and is brought in
the district and state of which all the defendants are residents
3. E. I. du Pont de Nemours Powder Company, one of the
above-named plaintiffs, has been engaged since 1907 in the
manufacture of explosives, and in the manufacture of articles
utilizing products and by-products therefrom. It maintains
and has maintained experimental stations employing technical
BILLS IN SPECIAL CASES. 523
and other men to invent and discover new and useful pro-
cesses, apparatuses, articles of manufacture, and compositions
of matter, and new and useful improvements thereof, in con-
nection with its said manufactures, some of which it protects
by letters patent and others of which it maintains as trade
secrets. Among its technical employes was Walter E. Mas-
land, one of the above-named defendants, who entered its
employ in 1905, soon after his graduation from the Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania, and who ceased to be so employed on
or about the 13th day of June, 1914. All its employes at its
experimental stations, including said Walter E. Masland,
were employed with the understanding that all inventions and
discoveries used or devised for or in connection with the
business or discovered by its employes were its exclusive
property and were not to be disclosed to others or utilized in
any manner by said employes. These secrets were guarded
with the utmost care and every precaution taken to prevent
their becoming known. Said Walter E. Masland executed on
or about the first day of August, 1905, a contract relating to
his employment with E. I. du Pont Company, a corporation
of the state of Delaware, the predecessor of said plaintiff,
E. I. du Pont de Nemours Powder Company, and from
whom said plaintiff purchased its present business together
with all rights appertaining thereto.
On or about the first day of August, 1910, said plaintiff,
E. I. du Pont de Nemours Powder Company, purchased the
business of a concern manufacturing artificial leather, and on
or about the first day of August, 1913, sold all the assets and
property relating thereto to the other of said plaintiffs, du
Pont Fabrikoid Company. In the early part of 1912 said
Walter E. Masland was placed in charge of experimental
work in inventing and discovering new and useful processes,
apparatuses, articles of manufacture, and compositions of
matter, and new and useful improvements thereof, in connec-
tion with said manufacture of artificial leather, and at that
524 SUITS IN EQUITY.
time and at all times subsequent thereto, has had full access
by reason of his said connection with said experimental work,
to valuable discoveries, inventions and trade secrets, devel-
oped at the manufacturing plant of said plaintiff, the du Pont
Fabrikoid Company, and to a limited extent to other labora-
tories and plants of said plaintiff, E. I. du Pont de Nemours
Powder Company. Said Walter E. Masland and his assist-
ants, together with other employes of both said plaintiffs,
have brought said experimental work to such a stage that
steps are being taken by plaintiffs for the construction of a
commercial sized manufacturing unit for utilizing the same.
On or about the first day of June, 1914, said Walter E. Mas-
land notified plaintiff, E. I. du Pont de Nemours Powder
Company, that it was his intention to resign from its employ
and admitted that he was about to engage in the manufacture
of artificial leather in his own behalf and with the aid and
assistance of the above-named defendants, Maurice H. Mas-
land, Charles W. Masland, Frank E. Masland and J. Wesley
Masland, utilizing the inventions, discoveries and trade secrets
of plaintiffs in so doing.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore aver, that
said defendant, Walter E. Masland, with the aid and assist-
ance of the above-named defendants, Charles H. Masland,
Maurice H. Masland, Charles W. Masland, Frank E. Mas-
land and J. Wesley Masland, is about to engage in the manu-
facture of artificial leather, utilizing plaintiffs' secret proces-
ses, apparatuses, articles of manufacture, and compositions of
And for as much as plaintiffs can have no adequate relief
save by this honorable court, plaintiffs pray as follows :
(a) That a writ or writs of injunction be issued, prelimi-
nary until the hearing of this cause and permanent thereafter,
enjoining said defendants, Walter E. Masland, Charles H. Mas-
land, Maurice H. Masland, Charles W. Masland, Frank E.
Masland and J. Wesley Masland, their officers, clerks, attor-
neys, servants, agents, employes, workmen, and confederates,
BILLS IN SPECIAL CASES. 525
and each of them, from directly or indirectly making, using,
selling or disclosing to any one or aiding or abetting in such
making, using, selling or disclosing, in any manner or by any
means, any and all secret processes, apparatuses, articles of
manufacture, or compositions of matter, or any new and useful
improvements thereof, which have become known to them by
reason of the employment of said Walter E. Masland by said
plaintiff, and commanding them and each of them to deliver
forthwith into the custody of the clerk of this court in sealed
envelopes, any and all memoranda, drawings, specimens, pa-
pers, and articles of any description relating thereto, in their
possession or under their control, without making or retaining
any copies or duplicates thereof.
(b) That said defendants, Walter E. Masland, Charles H.
Masland, Maurice H. Masland, Charles W. Masland, Frank
E. Masland and J. Wesley Masland, may be decreed to pay the
costs of this suit.
(c) That plaintiffs may have such other and further relief
as the equity of the case may require.
(d~) To the end, therefore, that said defendants, Walter E.
Masland, Charles H. Masland, Maurice H. Masland, Charles
W. Masland, Frank E. Masland and J. Wesley Masland, may,
if they can, show why plaintiffs should not have the relief
prayed for and may full, true and direct answer make, accord-
ing to the best and utmost of their knowledge, remembrance
and belief, to the several matters hereinbefore averred and set
forth as fully and particularly as if the same were repeated,
paragraph for paragraph, and the said defendants specifically
interrogated, may it please your honors to grant unto plain-
tiffs a writ of subpoena ad respondendum, issuing out of and
under the seal of this honorable court directed to said defend-
ants, Walter E. Masland, Charles H. Masland, Maurice H.
Masland, Charles W. Masland, Frank E. Masland and J. Wes-
ley Masland, commanding them and each of them to appear
and make answer to this bill of complaint and to perform and
526 SUITS IN EQUITY.
abide by such orders and decrees herein as to this court may
E. I. DF PONT DE NEMOURS POWDER Co.,
By Alexis I. Du Pont, Secy. [Seal.]
Du PONT FABRIKOID Co.,
By R. R. M. Carpenter. [Seal.]
CHARLES N. BUTLER,
Solicitor for Plaintiff.
EDWIN J. PRINDLE,
WARREN H. SMALL,
(1) A. FORM OF BILL
Rule 25 of Rules of Practice for Courts of Equity of the United States,
effective February 1, 1913, is new, and prescribes a simpler bill of com-
plaint than the former practice ; five matters are noted to render a bill
sufficient. The rule does not require any particular features but merely
fortifies a bill against attack if it contain the features set forth.
a. The caption is contained as usual in the above form.
b. The address is omitted since the rule does not mention it; the bill
is sufficient without it.
c. The names, citizenship, and residences of all parties are set forth
in the first paragraph.
d. A simple statement of the ground of jurisdiction is made in the
second paragraph ; venue is also set forth, although the bill is sufficient
without it. However, it can not be objectionable, since it discloses to the
court on the face of the bill the venue required by the Judicial Code, Sec. 51.
e. A simple, straightforward statement of the ultimate facts is made in
paragraph 3, omitting the verbosity and circumlocution that had become
an objectionable feature of pleading in equity under the old rules.
Such pleading as here given was not prohibited formerly, but it was
not practiced. This rule stresses simplicity and generally the bar has
welcomed the change.
f. The prayer for an injunction in paragraph 3a complies with fifth
requirement of Rule 25; paragraph 3b is unnecessary under the new rule;
paragraph 3c has always been embodied in bills of complaint, whereas
paragraph 3d, although usual, is not covered by Rule 25, and could well
The prayer for subpoena is not now necessary; Eq. R. 12 provides
for the issue of subpoena and in Pittsburg Water Heater Co. v. Beler
BILLS IN SPECIAL CASES. 527
Water Heater Co., 222 Fed. 950, the court decided that a court order
for such subpoena is not needed, for the clerk shall issue the same under
Under present equity rules answer under oath is not called for in
the bill of complaint, since the above case holds that that matter is now
covered by Rule 58 providing for discovery by interrogatories, in writing
and under oath.
Further, also, a prayer to require defendant to answer is not necessary,
except in the case covered by Rule 40, relating to nominal parties defendant.
B. SIGNATURE OF COUNSEL
Rule 24 requires the signature to the bill of one or more solicitors of
record, and the signature is considered as a certificate by each solicitor
(a) that he has read the pleading; (b) that according to his instructions
it is well grounded; (c) that it contains no scandalous matter, (d) and is
not interposed for delay.
In the above bill the parties plaintiff also sign ; no rule requires or
prohibits this nor makes any provision concerning it.
It is, therefore, unnecessary, but not open to valid objection. How-
ever, in the interest of brevity, simplicity and informality, such signatures
should be dispensed with.
C. ULTIMATE FACTS
Manifestly a variety of conditions determine what may properly be
pleaded ; Rule 25 provides that ultimate facts only need be stated in the
bill ; and hence where the claim is based on written documents to which
defendants are parties, plaintiff 'need set out only the execution and im-
port of such writings. Defendant's motion to require the writings to be
set forth by copy must rest on an averment of ignorance of the docu-
ments, otherwise Rule 25 is complied with. St. Louis Car Co. v. Brill Co.,
249 Fed. 502.
This rule permits the inclusion of allegations of due diligence tending
to excuse plaintiff from laches, in a bill of complaint alleging lack of
good faith and fair dealing under a contract. Foster v. Callaghan & Co.,
248 Fed. 944.
528 SUITS IN EQUITY.
A Bill by Creditor Praying the Appointment of a
The District Court of the United States
for the - - District of .
A. B., Plaintiff, \
vs. (.In Equity.
C. & D. Railway Co., Defendant, )
To the Judges of the District Court of the United States for
the District of - :
A. B., of , and a citizen of the state of , brings this
his bill on his own behalf and that of all other creditors and
stockholders of the C. & D. Railway Co., who may choose to
become parties to this suit and contribute to the expenses there-
of, against the said C. & D. Railway Co., which is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of - , and
being a citizen of the state of , and an inhabitant of the
- district of .
And plaintiff shows unto your honors that the defendant
was duly incorporated and organized under the laws of the