Gilmore v. Aiken
| Decision Date | 23 June 1875 |
| Citation | 118 Mass. 94 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | James T. Gilmore v. Charles L. Aiken & another |
[Syllabus Material]
Suffolk. Contract upon two promissory notes, dated April 22 1871, made by the defendants to the plaintiff, one for $ 5000 payable in twelve months, and the other for $ 10,000 payable in eighteen months.
The defendants in their answer alleged, and at the trial before Endicott, J., offered evidence tending to prove, that the consideration of these notes was the sale and assignment by the plaintiff to the defendants of his interest in three patents, described in the instrument of assignment, which they produced at the trial, and which is printed in the margin, [*] and that the reissue of the third patent was void, because not duly granted and issued according to law, and the notes were therefore without consideration and void.
The judge reserved for the determination of the full court the following questions:
1. Whether the instrument of assignment was such as to entitle the defendants to prove that the reissue was invalid.
2. Whether the reissue was void by reason of the facts set forth in the report, which are not now important to be stated.
If the court should decide either of these questions in the negative, the plaintiff was to have judgment for the whole amount of the notes, with interest. If the court should decide both questions in the affirmative, and should further hold that the defendants were entitled to an apportionment or abatement of the amount of the notes, the case was to be sent to an assessor to determine the amount thereof.
Judgment for the plaintiff for the whole amount.
G. L. Roberts, for the plaintiff, cited, upon the first question, Whitmore v. South Boston Iron Co. 2 Allen 52; Harper v. Ross, 10 Allen 332; Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Co. v. Chandler, 9 Allen 159; Brown v. Jackson, 3 Wheat. 449; Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333; Adams v. Cuddy, 13 Pick. 460; Allen v. Holton, 20 Pick. 458; Blanchard v. Brooks, 12 Pick. 47; Sweet v. Brown, 12 Met. 175; Hoxie v. Finney, 16 Gray 332; Jones v. Huggeford, 3 Met. 515; Shattuck v. Green, 104 Mass. 42; Sherman v. Champlain Transportation Co. 31 Vt. 162; Ashcroft v. Walworth, 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 546; Turnbull v. Weir Plow Co. 7 Pat. Off. Gaz. 173; Johnson v. Willimantic Linen Co. 33 Conn. 436; Woodworth v. Hall, 1 Wood. & M. 389; French v. Rogers, 1 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 133; Read v. Bowman, 2 Wall. 591; Kerr v. Lucas, 1 Allen 279; Winsor v. Lombard, 18 Pick. 57; Mixer v. Coburn, 11 Met. 559; Lamb v. Crafts, 12 Met. 353; Harmon v. Bird, 22 Wend. 113; Dean v. Mason, 4 Conn. 428; Slaughter v. Gerson, 13 Wall. 379; Taylor v. Hare 1 N. R. 260; Hall v. Conder, 2 C. B. (N. S.) 22; Smith v. Neale, 2 C. B. (N. S.) 67 Smith v. Scott, 6 C. B. (N. S.) 771.
C. Browne & Jabez S. Holmes, for the defendants, upon the same question, cited Nash v. Lull, 102 Mass. 60; Parish v. Stone, 14 Pick. 198; Earle v. De Witt, 6 Allen 520; Henshaw v. Robins, 9 Met. 83; Young v. Cole, 3 Bing. N. C. 724; Barr v. Gibson 3 M. & W. 390.
The extent of the interest undertaken to be conveyed by the plaintiff to the defendants, and of the obligation or estoppel created by such conveyance, depends upon the terms of the written instrument of assignment executed by him to them.
By that instrument, he sells, assigns and transfers to them only the right, title and interest which he has in three patents, one issued to himself and Anderson, a second issued to himself, and a third issued to himself and reissued to Anderson. The further clause, in the nature of a habendum, "to have and to hold the same" "for the full term for which the same were granted," is equally limited by the words "as fully and entirely as the same would have been or could have been held and enjoyed by me had this assignment and sale not been made." The grant is not enlarged, so far as regards the question before us, by the further grant of rights in any extensions of the patents, or by the agreement for further assignment. And the only express covenant is that the plaintiff "will do no act which will in any way impair the right I now have to said patents or either of them and hereby assigned to them." The assignment is in the nature of a quit-claim deed of whatever right, title or interest the plaintiff has or may acquire in the patents specified, and creates no warranty that either of the patents was valid.
The validity of the first and second patents and of the original issue of the third patent is not denied. The transfer of the plaintiff's rights in those was a legal, and there are no facts in the case upon which the court can say that it was not a sufficient, consideration for the notes sued on.
According to the terms of the report, therefore, upon which the case has been reserved for our determination, there must be
Judgment for the plaintiff for the whole amount.
---------
Notes:
[*]"Be it known that I, James T Gilmore, of Painesville in the county of Lake and State of Ohio 'in consideration of one dollar and other good and valuable consideration, to me in hand paid by Walter Aiken and Charles L. Aiken, both of Franklin in the county of Merrimack and State of New Hampshire, do hereby sell, assign and transfer to them all the right, title and interest I have in and to the following described patents; to wit, one bearing date ...
To continue reading
Request your trial