Broadwell v. Conover

• Decision Date: 04 December 1906
• Citation: 79 N.E. 402,186 N.Y. 429
• Parties: BROADWELL v. CONOVER.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

186 N.Y. 429

79 N.E. 402

BROADWELL

v.CONOVER.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 4, 1906.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Action by William C. Broadwell against Jacob C. Conover. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (95 N. Y. Supp. 1116,108 App. Div. 359) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, entered on a verdict, and an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.Junius R. Judson, for appellant.

George E. Warner, for respondent.

CHASE, J.

The plaintiff by his complaint alleges in substance that he is the inventor of a safety pin; that the defendant agreed to pay him $1,000 for such invention as soon as the same was patented, and that the patent has been granted, but that the defendant has failed to make such payment. The defendant by his answer denies the allegations of the complaint relating to the invention and his promise to pay the plaintiff $1,000 therefor. On the trial the evidence relating to the contract consisted principally of the testimony of the plaintiff and defendant, each in his own behalf. It appears from the record that the safety pin was patented in the name of the defendant on the 4th day of September, 1900. Plaintiff testified that in October, 1900, he asked the defendant for money, and that the defendant replied that ‘he had been to a great deal of expense in advertising and one thing and another, and he was not in a position to do anything just then; that he would do as he agreed with me.’ Plaintiff wrote the defendant a letter on May 26, 1901, in regard to the defendant's having his lawyer get a patent on a certain hook and eye, and waiting until it was convenient for him to pay to the defendant the expense of obtaining such patent. The letter was offered in evidence, but it was objected to by the plaintiff as immaterial, incompetent, and irrelevant. The objection was sustained, and the defendant took an exception. Plaintiff recovered a judgment, and it is claimed by the defendant that the rejection of the letter was error and requires that the judgment be reversed. The letter is as follows: ‘Since you were here, I have thought of the proposition you made me on the hook and eye, and, if you will do what you said I will send you the samples of the different ideas, and write out my claims. You can have your lawyer go ahead and get the patent as soon as possible. You know the proposition you made me. You said you would get the patent and I could pay you at any time most convenient for me. Now, if you will do this, write and let me know, and as soon as I hear from you I will send the samples. I can make a machine to make the...