Allen v. Riley

• Decision Date: 06 May 1905
• Docket Number: 13,922
• Citation: 71 Kan. 378,80 P. 952
• Parties: E. L. ALLEN, AND W. B. ALLEN, as Administrator, etc., v. FRANCES J. RILEY
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

80 P. 952

71 Kan. 378

E. L. ALLEN, AND W. B. ALLEN, as Administrator, etc., v. FRANCES J. RILEY

No. 13,922

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 6, 1905

Decided January, 1904.

Error from Brown district court; WILLIAM I. STUART, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. PATENT-RIGHT--Vendor Must Register Letters Patent--Case Followed. The act of 1889 (Gen. Stat. 1901, secs 4356-4358) requiring copies of letters patent and affidavits of their genuineness to be filed with the clerk of the district court is not invalid as an attempt to restrict the rights of holders of patents acquired under the federal statutes. The case of Mason v. McLeod, 57 Kan. 105, 45 P. 76, 41 L. R. A. 548, 57 Am. St. Rep. 327, followed.

2. CONTRACTS--Rescission--Offer of Restoration--Costs. Where the purchaser of a patent-right sold without a compliance with such act brings a suit to rescind the contract of sale and to recover the consideration paid, and in the petition offers to return all benefits received, and the defendant contests the rescission upon the ground that the statute is invalid, the plaintiff's right to the relief asked and to a judgment for costs is not affected by an omission to offer to restore the patent-right before the commencement of the suit.

C. W. Reeder, S. F. Newlon, Ryan & Ryan, and Loomis, Blair & Scandrett, for plaintiffs in error.

Means & Archer, and W. F. Shale, for defendant in error.

MASON J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

MASON, J.:

Mrs. Frances J. Riley conveyed to E. L. Allen a tract of land in exchange for $ 100 and the assignment to her of the rights held by E. W. Allen under a patent covering a washing-machine, so far as related to operations within the state of Kentucky. The transaction took place in Coffey county. No copy of the letters patent or affidavit of their genuineness had been filed with the clerk of the district court of that county, as required by the Kansas statute. (Gen. Stat. 1901, §§ 4356-4358.) Upon this ground Mrs. Riley brought a suit against the Allens to rescind the contract and to recover the value of the land, which had in the meantime passed into other hands, less the amount of money she had received. She recovered a judgment for $ 1250, from which error is now prosecuted.

Plaintiff in error claims that the act referred to is void, upon the ground that it attempts to restrict the right granted to the holder of a patent under the federal statute. The act has already been upheld against such attack in Mason v. McLeod, 57 Kan. 105, 45 P. 76, 41 L. R. A. 548, 57 Am. St. Rep. 327, where authorities are cited in support of the decision made, which is now reaffirmed. (See, also, 22 A. & E. Encycl. of L. 446; Union Nat. Bank v. Brown (Ky. App.), 101 Ky. 354, 41 S.W. 273, 38 L. R. A. 503, 72 Am. St. Rep. 420; State v. Cook, 107 Tenn. 499, 64 S.W. 720, 62 L. R. A. 174.)

A second objection to the judgment rendered is based upon the fact that the plaintiff did not, prior to beginning her suit offer to restore to the defendants the patent-right...