Ford v. Huff

• Decision Date: 17 January 1924
• Docket Number: 4144.
• Citation: 296 F. 652
• Parties: FORD v. HUFF.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

296 F. 652

FORD v. HUFF.

No. 4144.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

January 17, 1924

Rehearing Denied March 18, 1924.

W. E Kay and Thos. B. Adams, both of Jacksonville, Fla., Frank B Shutts and Crate D. Bowen, both of Miami, Fla., and Reuben Ragland, of Jacksonville, Fla. (Kay, Adams & Ragland, of Jacksonville, Fla., Shutts & Bowen, of Miami, Fla., and H. H Emmons and C. B. Longley, both of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellant.

James M. Carson, and John M. Murrell. both of Miami, Fla., and George T. Farrell and T. T. Ansberry, both of Washington, D.C. (T. T. Ansberry and George T. Farrell, both of Washington, D.C., and James M. Carson, John M. Murrell, and Thomas B. Norfleet, all of Miami, Fla., on the brief), for appellee.

Before WALKER, Circuit Judge, and FOSTER and GRUBB, District Judges.

WALKER Circuit Judge.

This suit was brought by the appellee against the appellant in a Florida state court in March, 1922. The parties are herein referred to as plaintiff and defendant, respectively. The declaration contained seven counts, each claiming the sum of $11,000,000.

All the counts except the seventh were common counts. The seventh count contained averments to the following effect:

For several years prior to January, 1908, plaintiff was employed by defendant as an electrical and mechanical engineer, defendant being engaged in the manufacture of certain automobiles, commonly known as Ford automobiles. On January 5, 1908, plaintiff agreed with defendant to invent a magneto for defendant that would work on the flywheel of an automobile, for and in consideration of defendant agreeing that upon the inventing by the plaintiff of such a magneto defendant would pay plaintiff a reasonable amount as a royalty on each of the magnetos so invented and used by the defendant in the construction and manufacture of such automobiles. Plaintiff thereafter invented such a magneto, and on March 2, 1908, made application to the United States Patent Office for a patent for said invention. In pursuance of that application a patent, No. 1,066,729, was issued on July 8, 1913, to defendant as assignee of plaintiff. Pursuant to the same agreement plaintiff invented a new and useful improvement in flywheel magnetos, for a patent for which application was made on April 27, 1908. On that application a patent, No. 1,098,361, was issued on May 26, 1914, to defendant as assignee of plaintiff. Defendant accepted the two inventions mentioned, and did use and cause to be used and is now using and causing to be used the magneto and improvement in flywheel magnetos so invented in the manufacture of automobiles known as model T Ford automobiles, of tractors known as Fordson tractors, and of trucks known as Ford trucks. Defendant has refused to keep and perform said agreement on his part, though repeatedly requested to do so, except that defendant did pay to plaintiff the sum of $10,000, which was agreed to be paid upon the manufacturing and using by defendant of the first 20,000 magnetos and improvements thereto which had been invented by plaintiff. A reasonable royalty for the use of said inventions is $2.50 upon each magneto and improvement thereto. After the removal of the suit to the court below, and before the issues had been settled, the defendant moved the court for leave to withdraw the pleas theretofore filed, and to file in the cause an equitable plea, which is set out at length in the opinion rendered by the District Judge. Huff v. Ford, 289 F. 858. Defendant's motion for leave to file that plea was overruled and denied, the court adjudging that that plea does not contain any equitable defense. The defendant complains of that action of the court.

It was permissible to allow a proper amendment of the pleadings at the time leave to file the plea mentioned was sought. R.S. Sec. 954 (Comp. St. Sec. 1591); Judicial Code, Sec. 274a (Comp. St. Sec. 1251a). A result of the denial of leave to file the plea on the ground that it does not contain any equitable defense was that thereafter it was not subject to be amended by making its allegations more definite or certain, if it was desired so to amend it, as the rejection of the plea put it out of the case.

That plea contained averments to the following effect:

The plaintiff's alleged causes of action set forth in the common counts are none other than he has attempted to set forth in the seventh count. For a long period prior to January, 1908, and at all times subsequent thereto, defendant was an officer, director, and large stockholder in the Ford Motor Company, a corporation, which was then and still is engaged in the manufacture of Ford automobiles and accessories, and then had and still has a plant in Detroit, Mich., where such automobiles and accessories were and still are being manufactured. Defendant individually has never manufactured automobiles or magnetos. Prior to January, 1908, defendant had conceived the idea and believed that a principle long before discovered and known to him could be applied by devising a flywheel magneto. Plaintiff, being employed generally by defendant as a mechanic and electrician, was directed by defendant, if possible, to devise an application of said principle for a flywheel magneto. Thereupon plaintiff applied himself to the task so assigned to him, and for his services in that behalf, as throughout the course of his employment, was paid and received and accepted a regular weekly compensation. During the course of plaintiff's employment needed material and equipment for models, experiments, and tests in plaintiff's efforts to work out said problem were supplied to plaintiff without expense to him. For like purpose plaintiff was likewise supplied with the services and aid of other engineers and mechanics and assistants. When defendant directed plaintiff to the solution of said problem defendant imparted to plaintiff all of defendant's knowledge concerning said principle, and constantly, during the course of plaintiff's said employment, personally aided plaintiff with defendant's ideas and suggestions for the accomplishment of the purpose in hand. None of the expenses for the patents for a flywheel magneto and an improvement thereupon, both devised with the aid of defendant, and defendant's engineers, mechanics, and assistants, was borne by plaintiff. Defendant, wishing to reward plaintiff for his success in the task so assigned to him, provided that plaintiff should receive as such reward the sum of $10,000, payable in installments. Thereafter installments of said reward were paid and received by plaintiff, said installments covering a period of years until February, 1912, at which time plaintiff voluntarily left the employ of the Ford Motor Company and the final payment of said reward was made.

Neither at the time of said final payment nor prior thereto did plaintiff make any claim or demand whatever, either upon defendant or the Ford Motor Company, for any compensation remuneration or reward by way of royalty or otherwise other than the balance of the sum of $10,000 provided for by defendant as aforesaid. At the time of said final payment defendant, as well as the Ford Motor Company, understood that all obligations of defendant to plaintiff in respect to compensation and remuneration were...