Burr v. De La Vergne
| Decision Date | 01 June 1886 |
| Citation | 7 N.E. 366,102 N.Y. 415 |
| Parties | BURR v. DE LA VERGNE. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from judgment of general term supreme court, First department, affirming judgment in favor of defendant.
Oscar Frisbie and E. N. Dickerson, for respondent, William H. burr.
Sidney S. Harris and Saml. Hand, for appellant, John C. De La Vergne.
The proposition asserted in behalf of the defendant, that one partner acquires no right or interest, legal or equitable, in an invention made by his copartner during the existence of the partnership, by reason merely of the copartnership relation, although the invention relates to an improvement in the machinery to facilitate the business carried on by the firm, and although the partner making the invention uses copartnership means in his experiments, and is also bound, by the copartnership articles, to devote his whole time and attention to the firm business, is a doctrine supported by authority and consonant with reason. Slemmer's Appeal, 58 Pa. St. 164; Belcher v. Whittemore, 134 Mass. 330.
The proposition assumes, however, that there was no agreement pursuant to which a joint right was to be acquired in inventions made by either partner, and that the making or perfecting of inventions was not within the scope of the partnership business. The defendant relies upon this principle as decisive against the claim of the plaintiff to demand any share in the joint inventions of Mixer and the defendant, for which patents were issued to them jointly. This contention is put upon the ground that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, upon which the plaintiff bases his action, as proved and found, related to an interest in inventions which should be made by Mixer under the arrangement between Mixer and the defendant. It is therefore claimed that the agreement is confined to an interest in inventions made by Mixer exclusively, and does not extend to joint inventions made by Mixer and the defendant. But this construction of the contract, if allowed to prevail in this case, would operate as a fraud upon the plaintiff. When the agreement was made, Mixer had in mind an undeveloped idea which he desired to embody in an experimental machine, to test its practicability and usefulness, and he therefore proposed to the defendant that experiments should be carried on in the brewery of De La Vargne & Burr, and that he would give the defendant one-half interest in the invention, provided the latter would pay the expenses of making the experiments and of constructing an experimental machine to test the value of the invention. The defendant, as the evidence on the part of the plaintiff tends to show, then presented the proposition to the plaintiff, and offered to give him one-half of his proposed interest under the proposition of Mixer, provided the plaintiff would agree that the expenses of the experiments, and of constructing the experimental machine, should be paid by the firm. The plaintiff consented, and an expenditure of $40,000 was incurred, and paid by the firm in prosecuting the enterprise, which finally resulted in the perfecting of the invention, and the construction of a machine apparently of great value. Three several patents were applied for, and issued to defendant and Mixer jointly. This fact furnishes the foundation for the claim made that these patents were not within the agreement between the parties.
It must be assumed that the inventions covered by these patents were the joint inventions of the joint patentees. This is the inference from the patents themselves, and it is claimed that the inference is conclusive and incontestable upon a collateral inquiry. Assuming this to be true, nevertheless it does not, we think, furnish an answer to the claim of the plaintiff to an interest in these patents, under his arrangement with the defendant. The referee finds, and the evidence justifies the finding, that the most material parts of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Circular Loom Co. v. Wilson
... ... 838; ... Joliet Mfg. Co. v. Dice, 105 Ill. 649. It has been ... enforced between partners. Belcher v. Whittemore, ... 134 Mass. 330; Burr v. De la Vergne, 102 N.Y. 415, 7 ... N.E. 366; Slemmer's Appeal, 58 Pa. 155, 164, 98 Am. Dec ... 248. How far the rule will be held to be ... ...
-
American Circular Loom Co. v. Wilson
...Mfg. Co. v. Dice, 105 Ill. 649. It has been enforced between partners. Belcher v. Whittemore, 134 Mass. 330;Burr v. De la Vergne, 102 N. Y. 415, 7 N. E. 366;Slemmer's Appeal, 58 Pa. 155, 164,98 Am. Dec. 248. How far the rule will be held to be applicable where it appears that by the express......
-
Cahill v. Regan
...749; Talbot v. Harrison, 150 Misc. 798, 799, 270 N.Y.S. 171, 172, affirmed 240 App.Div. 957, 268 N.Y.S. 875; cf. Burr v. De La Vergne, 102 N.Y. 415, 419, 7 N.E. 366, 367; Houghton v. United States, 4 Cir., 23 F.2d 386; see, also Toulmin, Handbook of Patents (2d ed., 1954), [5 N.Y.2d 297] p.......
-
Friend N. Whitcomb v. Harry W. Whitcomb
... ... partnership. But this cannot be so, for a patent right and ... the privileges thereby granted are incorporeal personal ... property, De La Vergne Refrigerating Mach. Co. v ... Featherstone, 147 U.S. 209, 37 L.Ed. 138, 13 S.Ct ... 283, and are entitled to the same rights and sanctions which ... to the patent simply by reason of the fact that partnership ... funds were used in obtaining it, Burr v. De La ... Vergne, 102 N.Y. 415, 7 N.E. 366; Belcher v ... Whittemore, 134 Mass. 330, it did become, as it ... lawfully might, Fresno Home ... ...