Stebler

(after stating the facts as above). [1, 2] 1. It is contended by the appellee that appellants’ second and third assignments of error, attacking the judgment of the lower court approving the allowance by the master of damages in excess of nominal damages, and of profits upon the entire machines sold by the defend *706 ant Parker, complete with bins and distributing systems, instead of upon the patented grader only, are defective, in that they raise objections which were not presented to or considered by the lower court. Other than this, there is no answering argument made by appellee with respect to the questions discussed in appellants’ brief under these assignments. It is a well-settled rule of law that:

See, also, Sheffield, etc., Railway Co. v. Gordon, 151 U. S. 285, 290 , 14 Sup. Ct. 343, 38 L. Ed. 164 .

After a careful reading of appellants’ exceptions to the master’s report, we are of opinion that they refer specifically to the right of the master to find, and his finding, that the modified machines, manufactured and sold by the appellant Parker'since the entry of the interlocutory decree herein, infringed appellee’s patent, and to the allowance of any profits and damages…