McClure v. Jeffrey
| Decision Date | 25 November 1856 |
| Citation | 8 Ind. 73 |
| Parties | McClure v. Jeffrey |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Bartholomew Circuit Court.
The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded.
W Herod and S. Stansifer, for appellant.
W Singleton and R. Hill, for appellee.
Jeffrey sued McClure upon a promissory note for the payment of 1,000 dollars. The defendant's answer to the complaint is as follows: 1. That the note was given in part consideration of two deeds made by Jeffrey to McClure, whereby he conveyed to him the right to make, use and vend, an alleged new and useful improvement in force pumps, for which letters patent had been granted to Jeffrey; that the pretended improvement consists alone in the piston of the pump being so constructed as to keep itself packed with water, and was so patented; and that Jeffrey warranted said invention to be an improvement, when it was not an improvement in forcepumps, but is wholly worthless. 2. The second paragraph admits the consideration of the note, and that a patent was obtained; sets out that in which the improvement is alleged to consist; and, after stating that Jeffrey warranted said supposed improvement to be new and useful, avers that it is not a new and useful invention, and that the pump will perform, in all respects as well without, as with it. 3. The third, after admitting, setting out, and stating as in the above paragraph, alleges that Jeffrey, to induce McClure to accept the deeds and make the notes, and whereby he did induce him to do so, falsely and fraudulently represented that the pretended invention was an improvement in force-pumps, and a new and useful invention, when in fact it was neither, but is wholly worthless. 4. That the patent and specifications do not describe the pump in use, so that it may be known in whet the improvement consists. 5. That Jeffrey warranted the alleged invention to be a great improvement in force-pumps; that the pumps would draw water from a depth of fifteen feet, and at the same time throw a stream of water thirty feet high, and work with the greatest ease by one man; that they would rarely need repairs, and were good fire engines; when, in truth, the pump failed in every particular warranted, and is wholly useless. Demurrers were sustained to the first four paragraphs. To the fifth there was a reply making an issue of fact. Verdict for the plaintiff. New trial refused, and judgment. The first paragraph is obviously defective, because it does not aver that that in which the improvement is alleged to consist, viz., "In the piston of the pump being so constructed as to keep itself packed with water," was not an improvement in force-pumps. It was insufficient to allege generally, that the invention "was not an improvement in force-pumps." To this paragraph the demurrer was well taken.
The second and third defenses are each subject to the same rule of decision. Under the patent laws of the United States, the thing alleged to have been patented must be a new invention, not known or used before the application for a patent, otherwise, the patent itself is invalid. Curtis on Patents, ss. 1-66; Earl v. Sawyer, 4 Mason 6. And it has been decided that, in an action upon a note given for a patent right, the plaintiff cannot recover if it appear that the invention for which the patent was granted was not new and useful, although both parties acted in good faith in giving and receiving the note. Geiger v. Cook, 3 W. & S. 266. This seems to be a correct exposition of the law. And the defenses under consideration contain that which amounts to an express warranty by the vendor of the patent, that the invention was new and useful,--with an averment that it is neither.
Kernodle v. Hunt, 4 Blackf. 57, is relied on in...
To continue reading
Request your trial