Hildreth v. Duff

• Citation: 143 F. 139
• Decision Date: 01 February 1906
• Docket Number: 15.
• Parties: HILDRETH v. DUFF et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

143 F. 139

HILDRETH v. DUFF et al.

No. 15.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

February 1, 1906

J Snowden Bell and D. F. Patterson, for complainant.

Kay Totten & Winter and Dalzell, Scott & Gordon, for respondents.

ACHESON Circuit Judge.

The original bill was brought by Herbert L. Hildreth against Robert P. Duff and Edward A. Kitzmiller, copartners doing business as P. Duff & Sons, to compel them to assign to the complainant letters patent No. 736,313, for a method of pulling candy, granted on August 11, 1903, to Chas Thibodeau, as assignor to Catherine M. Thibodeau, and by her assigned to the defendants, and also the defendants' interest under an assignment to them by Chas. Thibodeau in an application filed by the latter for letters patent for a candy pulling machine, and to enjoin the defendants from the further use, benefit, enjoyment, leasing, or sale of the inventions, improvements, machines, and devices, covered by said patent or said application, and from prosecuting or bringing suits for the infringement of the method patent. The bill of complaint is based upon the following instrument:

'Whereas Herbert L. Hildreth of Boston, candy manufacturer, is desirous of having perfected and manufactured a certain machine or machines for use in the manufacture of candy, and especially for sizing, shaping, cutting, wrapping and packing, also the pulling of molasses candy, and whereas I Chas. Thibodeau, being a skilled mechanic, and desirous of entering the employ of said Hildreth for the purpose of constructing, improving and perfecting such machinery: Now, therefore, in consideration of such employment and of the payment of wages to me at the rate of ($3.25) three dollars and twenty-five cents per day, I hereby agree with said Hildreth to enter his employ, and that I will give him my best services, and also the full benefit and enjoyment of any and all inventions and improvements which I have made or may hereafter make relating to machines or devices pertaining to said Hildreth's business. I also further agree that should said Hildreth not desire to patent any of said inventions or improvements, but to keep the same secret, I will do all in my power to assist him in this, and will not disclose any information as to the same or any of them, except at the request of said Hildreth.

'Signed at Boston, Mass., this 29th day of May, 1897.

'Charles Thibodeau.'

At the opening of this discussion I have to say that the determination in the case of Thibodeau v. Hildreth, 124 F. 892, 60 C.C.A. 78, 63 L.R.A. 480, is not controlling here; and I particularly note that the court in that case was not called on to determine the scope of the Thibodeau contract, and did not interpret its scope. The extent to which the actual adjudication went was that the contract was not unconscionable nor against public policy, and that Thibodeau was not entitled to have it delivered up and canceled.

It appears that the foregoing paper, which the complainant seeks to have specially performed, was prepared exclusively by him and his legal adviser, and that Thibodeau knew nothing about its terms until it was presented to him for signature. This is a fact fairly to be considered, if there is any doubt as to the meaning of the paper or it is reasonably open to more than one interpretation. Noonan v. Bradley, 9 Wall. 394, 407, 19 L.Ed. 757. I think this just rule is particularly applicable to the facts of the present case.

At the time the paper was signed, machines for pulling candy, such as that here in question, to take the place of the men who pulled the candy over hooks to whiten it, were not known in the art. No such machine was in use in Hildreth's business nor in course of construction for him. Under the circumstances, neither Hildreth or Thibodeau could have contracted with immediate reference to such a machine. At that time, however, machines performing a different kind of pulling operation were known to and used in the trade. The function of that machine was to pull the candy down to the requisite size to feed the cutting and wrapping machine doing the work of a girl who was accustomed to pull the candy down to the required size. A pair of such pulling machines were built for Hildreth in March, 1897, about two months before the Thibodeau contract was...