Corthell v. Summit Thread Co.

• Decision Date: 26 June 1933
• Citation: 167 A. 79
• Parties: CORTHELL v. SUMMIT THREAD CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

167 A. 79

CORTHELL

v. SUMMIT THREAD CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

June 26, 1933.

Report from Superior Court, Androscoggin County.

Action by Robert N. Corthell against the Summit Thread Company. On report.

Judgment for plaintiff.

Argued before PATTANGALL, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, and THAXTER, JJ.

Clifford & Clifford, of Lewiston, for plaintiff.

Verrill, Hale, Booth & Ives, of Portland, and George W. Abele, of Boston, Mass., for defendant.

STURGIS, Justice.

In this action, the plaintiff declares in special assumpsit for the breach of a written contract, and adds the general money counts with specifications. The plea is the general issue. The case comes forward on report.

The Summit Thread Company, the defendant in this action, and hereinafter referred to as the company, is a cotton yarn finisher with executive offices in Boston, Mass., and a mill and machine shops in East Hampton, Conn. It manufactures spools, bobbins, and other receptacles for winding threads, as also various devices which, to stimulate and retain trade, it loans to its customers for use with its products.

Some time prior to the spring of 1926, Robert N. Corthell, the plaintiff, then employed by the company as a salesman, perfected and patented two bobbin case control adjuncts and a guarding attachment for thread cops, especially adapted for use in stitching machines in shoe shops, and offered to sell them to the company. A thirty-day option, taken but not exercised, led to a conference, which involved, not only the purchase of these inventions, but also future patents which might be taken out by the plaintiff, his remuneration for them and his salary as a salesman. The result was that, on March 31, 1926, the contract in suit was executed. The preambulary provisions of the agreement recite the giving and the reception of the option already referred to, the plaintiff's demand for increased salary, and then read as follows:

"Whereas, the Summit Thread Company being desirous at all times to be fair and reasonable, now makes the following proposition, which was accepted by the said Corthell, in a rough form at East Hampton, Connecticut, on March 23, 1926.

"That beginning on April 1, 1926, the Summit Thread Company agrees to pay R. N. Corthell a salary of $4,000. per annum, for a period of five years, which is $620. additional to Corthell's present salary and that, in event of any distribution of Profits as covered by the Memorandum of Agreement relative to the Distribution of Profits which might be coming to the said Corthell, then the above $620. is to be deducted from whatever the amount coming to him is.

"In consideration, of the above, Robert N. Corthell agrees to accept $3,500. from the Summit Thread Company for the three patents mentioned in this agreement, the receipt of which is acknowledged by Corthell's signature to this agreement, and

"Furthermore, in consideration of the increased salary to Corthell for five years and the payment of $3500. to Corthell for the three patents, R N. Corthell agrees that he will turn over to the Summit Thread Company, all future inventions for developments, in which case, reasonable recognition will be made to him by the Summit Thread Company, the basis and amount of recognition to rest entirely with the Summit Thread Company at all times.

"All of the above is to be interpreted in good faith on the basis of what is reasonable and intended and not technically."

The certificate accompanying the report stipulates that the case is to be decided upon so much of the evidence as is legally admissible. The facts already stated are not in controversy. The following summary sets out the findings on other issues:

During the term of the contract, no question was raised by either party to it as to the validity or the binding effect of its several provisions. The plaintiff continued as a salesman for the company, covering the same New England territory and particularly the shoe shop trade. Within five months after the contract was signed, he turned over a new invention for development. The company was marketing thread on a spool or "cop" called the Summit King spool, made up by attaching a smooth frusto-conical wooden base to a tubular fiber core. As an improvement, the plaintiff conceived the idea of grooving the head or base of the spool, making corrugations thereon which would prevent thread convolutions from dropping as they unwound. This invention was brought to the attention of the officers of the company, data and drawings furnished, and, upon application by the general manager and through his assignment, the company, on October 18, 1927, took out letters patent No. 1,646, 198.

On April 27, 1927, the plaintiff filed an application on a bobbin controlling adjunct for sewing machine shuttles. This adjunct, composed of an annular sheet metal head provided with a tube or tubular shank to fit the bore of a thread cop, had fixed to its outer surface a thin spring of resilient sheet metal, and was made with the object of taking up the thrust or side play of the thread bobbins used in stitching machines in shoe factories. The plaintiff assigned this patent to the company, and on January 8, 1929, it obtained letters patent No. 1,698,392.

A further invention made by the plaintiff and turned over to the company consists of a celluloid disc with a boss in the center used in Singer I. M. shuttles, so-called, to confine the bobbin ready wound with thread in the chamber, the boss acting as a hub for the bobbin to turn on, keeping it steady as the machine runs and the thread is unwound. This was also a device particularly adapted to use in shoe shops, and was patented by the company.

Finally, the plaintiff turned over for development what seems to be termed in the trade as a S. C. B. bobbin with celluloid or paper discs fastened to the tube by four ears pressed down in the center. This was made for use in all sewing machines using ready-wound bobbins. It has never been patented, and its patentability is doubtful.

The plaintiff has never received any compensation for these inventions. He turned them over to the company in accordance with the terms of his contract, and it owns them and the patents which have been issued. Prior to the expiration of the contract, the plaintiff requested "recognition," but received only assurances that he would be fixed up all right, and finally that the matter of his compensation would be taken up when a new contract was made. When, on April 1, 1931, the contract expired, it was not renewed, and, at the end of July, following, the plaintiff's employment was terminated.

No contention is made that the...