SECOMBE V. CAMPBELL.
his property. Any making for use during the term was taking from him what belonged to him. To permit any others to make or produce such machines during the term, and hold them till the expiration and then use them freely, as if made after, would be to permit them to make oj' with so much of his property that the law' had guaranteed to him. To restrain the use after the term, without his consent, gives nothing to him that he was not entitled to, and takes nothing from them that they had any right to. it gives him no right acquired beyond his term, and merely secures to him the full right he was entitled to during the term. The law would be open to reproach if it would not allow a court of equity, by its usual methods, in a case properly before it to accomplish a result so just. The argument upon this motion has confirmed rather than shaken the views expressed before upon this ·subject. Motion denied.
(Circuit Oourt, S. D. New York.
May 1, 1880.)
PATENT-PUBCHASER OF MAY RELY ON RECORD TITLE.-SO
long as he acts in good faith, the purchaser of a patent has a right to rely upon the apparent record title, the same as in the case of real estate. SAME-BoNA FIDE PURCHASER-INSUFFICIENT PLEA.-A plea by a defendant who claims the rights of a bonajlde purchaser of a patent, which alleges that he purchased for a "good and valuable consideration," ill insufficient, but the consideration should be set forth in amount, and in traversable form, 80 that plaintiff may traverse it if he choose, and tha court see that it was adequately valuable.
In Equity. David A. Secombe, for complainant. Geo. H. Williams and Marcu! P. Norton, for defendants. WHEELER, D. J. This bill is brought upon re-issued letters patent, division A, No. 4,143, to Helen M. Ingalls, assignee of Marcus P. Norton, dated October 4, 1870, for an improvement in post-office postmarking and postage cancelling stamps, and alleges that she assigned this, with other pat-
ents, to the plaintiff's intestate, and others to the Secomhe Manufacturing Company, of which he was president; that the Secombe Manufacturing Company and he, president, joined in a re-assignment to her, which, by the contract, was not to, and by what the plaintiff claims to be its true construction does not, include this one; bQ.t that, if by any construction this one is included, the assignment was drawn to include it by the fraud of her agent; that she had assigned it to the defendant Campbell, who had obtained a decree against the defendant James for account of profits and damages for infringement; and prays that if the instrument of re-assignment is held to include this patent, it may be reformed so as not to include it, and that the profits and damages be decreed to the plaintiff. The defendant Campbell has pleaded to so much of the hill as alleges fraud in making the instrument of re-assignment; that he is a bona fide purchaser of these letters patent, from Helen M. Ingalls, for a "good and valuable consideration, to-wit, a certain sum of money then advanced and paid by him to her," without notice of the fraud. This plea was set down for argumen"t by the plaintiff, and the argument has been heard. There is no fair question but that the fact that the defendant was such a purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice, would be a sufficient reason for his not answering that part of the bill, and be a good plea to it. Story's Eq. PI. § 805. The titles to patents are required by law to be recorded, and a purchaser has the right to rely upon the apparent record title, so long as he acts in good faith, the same as the purchaser of real estate has where the title is required to be so shown. In either case the purchaser must have parted with a consideration large enough to make it inequitable for him to be required to give up the property to one who has not the apparent legal title. Boone v. Chiles, 10 Pet. 177. . In this plea there is no allegation of the consideration paid other than the one recited. The words "good and valuable" may refer to what would be good and valuable between the parties, which might be very slight, and a certain sum of
money might be a very small sum, and wholly inadequate to make his equity superior to Secombe's, if the fraud did in fact exist. The rules of pleading as to this are the same as at law, and the consideration ought to be set forth in amount in traversable form, so that the plaintiff can traverse it if he chooses, or the court see that it is adequately valuable if not traversed. Although this plea is apparently good in other respects, ii is wanting in this and must be overruled. Plea. overruled.
PRATT and others.
(Circuit Cuurt,·S. D. New York. May 7, 1880:'
PATENT-"1MPROVEMENT IN MACHl1'lEB ll'OR CLOSING SEAMS OF METALLIO CANS "-RE-ISSUE-ll'lFRINGBMENT.
Benjamin F. Thurston and Livingston Scott, for plaintiff. Edu'urd N. Dickerson and Charles C. Beamand, for defendants. BLATCHFORD, C. J. This suit is brought on re-issued letters patent No.4,777, division A, granted March 5, 1872, to Edward T. Covell, for an "improvement in machines for closing seams of metallic cans," the original patent having been granted to said Covell September 21, 1869, for 17 years, from September 10, 1869, and re-issued in two divisions. The specification of the re-issue states that the invention is "an improvement in machinery for closing and clamping the endjoints of sheet metal cans;" that the invention "relates to the construction of machinery for closing, clamping and pressing down the seams, forming projecting joints at the top and bottom of a sheet metal can or other vessel;" and that "it consists, third, in the use and arrangement of opposite clamping jaws or compressing plates, formed and shaped to fit upon and clamp between them the entire joint at either end of the can at one operation, in combination with a movable or stationary head plate or anvil, made to fit within the projec-