¶1The contract of the parties was executed; the consideration of the grant was paid, and invested in the dry dock. Of one ninth part of the dry dock Floyd became the owner, and as such, as well as under the express covenants of the defendants, entitled to his share of the profits of its use. The defendants have recognized such title, and from time to time, until the decease of Floyd, have accounted and settled with him upon that basis. If it were competent for the defendants to show a failure of consideration for the share of Floyd, the facts offered in evidence fall far short of such proof. The defendants continued in the enjoyment of the patent, undisturbed, until its expiration. They held it up to prevent any interference with their sole and exclusive use of the dock in the harbor of Boston, and it accomplished the purpose. That which the patent was designed to secure they had, and for Floyd’s benefit as well as their own. Judgment on the verdict.
67 Mass. 114
Bartlett v. Holbrook
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided March 15, 1854
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1854-03-15
Covenant by the administrator of John Floyd, against Samuel F. Holbrook and James Dillon, on the following instrument, signed and sealed by the defendants: “ To all persons to whom these presents shall come: Know ye that we, Samuel F. Holbrook and James Dillon, of the city of Boston, Massachusetts, separately and jointly do bind ourselves, our heirs and assigns, to do and perform as hereinafter mentioned.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1898
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1854-03-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →