Emerson v. Hubbard
| Decision Date | 02 March 1888 |
| Citation | 34 F. 327 |
| Parties | EMERSON et al. v. HUBBARD et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Wm. L. Pierce, for complainants.
W. Bakewell, for respondents.
It seems to be quite plain that the assignments set up in the original bill transferred the title to the letters patent only, and did not carry the claims for previous infringements. Moore v. Marsh, 7 Wall. 515. Now, giving to the allegations contained in the proposed supplemental bill the fullest effect, the plaintiffs' alleged equitable title to those claims rests upon the mere intention of the parties to those assignments thereby to transfer them. But no such intention appears on the face of the instruments. At best it is a case of naked intention verbally expressed, but not carried out. No particulars are stated, or facts disclosed, from which the plaintiff might deduce any equitable title. The assignments of the patents to the plaintiff was for the nominal consideration of five dollars. In fine, it is not shown to the court that the plaintiff had the shadow of right in or to the claims in question until nearly five months after this suit was brought, when assignments thereof were executed. These post assignments the plaintiff seeks, by means of a supplemental bill, to have further objections to the motion. The motion is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brush Elec. Co. v. California Elec. Light Co.
... ... the license itself being the measure of the licensee's ... rights. McKay v. Smith, 29 F. 295; Emerson v ... Hubbard, 34 F. 327; Ingalls v. Tice, 14 F. 297; ... National Rubber Co. v. Boston Rubber Shoe Co., 41 F ... Even in ... a ... ...
-
Herman v. Detroit Shipbuilding Co.
... ... 24, 43 Sup.Ct. 254, 67 L.Ed. 516; ... May v. Juneau County (C.c.) 30 F. 241; Kaolatype ... Engraving Co. v. Hoke (C.C.) 30 F. 444; Emerson v ... Hubbard (C.C.) 34 F. 327; Jones v. Berger ... (C.C.) 58 F. 1006; Superior Drill Co. v. Ney Mfg ... Co. (C.C.) 98 F. 734; Canda Brothers v ... ...
-
John L. Rie, Inc. v. Shelly Bros., Inc.
...patent assignments, is clear and unambiguous as to its effect. Also, the intention of the parties is irrelevant. Emerson, et al. v. Hubbard, et al., 34 F. 327 (C.C.W.D.Pa.1888). Accordingly, plaintiff's claim that because defendant had not raised this issue until the preparation of the fina......
-
Eveland v. Detroit Machine Tool Co.
...cannot be cured by the accrual of a cause pending suit." United States v. McCord, 233 U. S. 157, 34 S. Ct. 550, 58 L. Ed. 893; Emerson v. Hubbard (C. C.) 34 F. 327; American Bonding & Trust Co. v. Gibson County, supra; Bush v. Pioneer Mining Co., 179 F. 78 (C. C. A. 9); Mono County v. Flani......