I have this instant received yours of the 24th.

The court I believe was of opinion that the particular act for the releif of Oliver Evans varies the general patent law in this particular case.¹ Under that act, the court was, so far as I can recollect, of opinion that the patent might issue for the general result— the combination of the whole machinery for the purpose of manufacturing flow, & also for the improvement in each machine and for the invention of any one of the machines invented by him. It is considered under the act as a patent with a double aspect. There is I believe no error of the reporter in stating the opinion, though on this point I cannot speak positively as I have not retained the original.

I am a little puzzled to say what is the extent of the declaration in p 518, I rather think the court meant to decide that the specification was sufficient & enabled O.E. to prove under it at the trial that his improvement had been violated. In all proceedings under this particular patent you will observe my dear Sir that the act for the relief of O.E. is understood by the court as authorising a much greater latitude than is authorized by the general patent law. Yours affectionately