Huff v. Ford

• Decision Date: 11 May 1923
• Citation: 289 F. 858
• Parties: HUFF v. FORD.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

289 F. 858

HUFF v. FORD.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

May 11, 1923

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Carson Murrell & Farrington and Thomas B. Norfleet, all of Miami, Fla., and T. T. Ansberry and Geo. T. Farrell, both of Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

Shutts & Bowen, of Miami, Fla., and Kay, Adams & Ragland, of Jacksonville, Fla., for defendant.

CLAYTON District Judge.

The plaintiff filed on March 23, 1922, praecipe in the circuit court of Dade county, Fla., in this action for summons directed to the defendant. Personal service was made March 23, 1922, in accordance with the Florida statute. On the same day the plaintiff filed his declaration, claiming $11,000,000 damages. The first six counts thereof are the common counts. The seventh, which is hereinafter set out in extenso, claims damages for the breach of an alleged contract or agreement whereby the plaintiff invented a magneto for the defendant and for the use of which the defendant became bound to the plaintiff for compensation in the nature of a royalty.

On May 1, 1922, Shutts & Bowen, attorneys for defendant, entered a general appearance. On June 5, 1922, defendant filed in the circuit court of Dade county his petition and bond for removal of the cause into the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida. All requirements were met by the defendant for removal. The case was duly ordered removed and a transcript of all the proceedings in the state court was filed by the defendant in this court on July 6, 1922. On August 4, 1922, the defendant filed demurrer to the declaration and at the same time filed a motion for compulsory amendment of the declaration. On September 9, 1922, this court heard the matter of the defendant's demurrer and motion for compulsory amendment and on the same day overruled each. This fact is reported in 283 F. 658.

On September 28, 1922, written stipulation was filed in this court by the attorneys of the plaintiff and the attorneys of the defendant in which it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant should have until November 15, 1922, in which to plead, demur, or otherwise move, as he, the defendant, might be advised; and, also, the stipulation provided that--

'It is further agreed by and between counsel for the parties that upon the plaintiff filing his replication, demurrer or other motion to defendant's pleas, that defendant will promptly join issue to plaintiff's replication or demur to same and will promptly move with the plaintiff in all ways necessary to the settlement of the pleadings herein and all upon reasonable notice having been exchanged between the parties, said notice not to exceed five days subsequent to the date of the filing of any plea, demurrer or motion.'

On August 4, 1922, the defendant filed his pleas to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth counts of the declaration, denying that he was indebted as alleged; stating that the alleged cause of action did not occur within five years before the suit; that the cause of action did not occur within four years before the suit; and that the alleged cause of action did not occur within three years before the suit.

On November 14, 1922, the defendant filed his pleas to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth counts of the declaration on the ground that the alleged cause, if any at all, within the state of Michigan, did not occur within six years before the suit, and that by the laws of that state no action thereon could be maintained by reason of the lapse of six years. All pleas except those first hereinabove mentioned (being the general issue) were sworn to by the defendant in his own person.

On November 17, 1922, the plaintiff filed in this court his formal joinder of issue on all pleas except the sixth plea to the seventh count of the declaration. On the same day the plaintiff demurred to the sixth plea to the seventh count of the declaration for the reason that the seventh ground set up could not bring the case within the statute of frauds because the contract might have been performed within one year after the date thereof.

On November 17, 1922, the plaintiff filed his replication to the second, third, fourth, and fifth pleas of the defendant.

Neither at the time of the removal of the cause nor at any time since it was removed has the defendant objected to the jurisdiction of this court. If as an original proposition this court did not have jurisdiction, the defendant has waived his claim of the privilege of asserting the want of jurisdiction by interposing the demurrer and his several pleas to the merits and the statute of limitations, all of which are mentioned in the beginning of this opinion. Removal of Causes by James Hamilton Lewis, Sec. 36, citing Hanover National Bank v. Smith, 13 Blatch. 224 F. Cas. No. 6,035; Smithson v. Chicago G.W. Ry. Co., 71 Minn. 216, 73 N.W. 853; Hudson River R. & T. Co. v. Day (C.C.) 54 F. 545; T. & P.R. v. Matkin (Tex. Civ. App.) 142 S.W. 604; and other cases in footnote 4.

On March 29, 1923, the defendant, through his attorneys, presented in open court during the term at which said cause was triable written request for withdrawal of his pleas theretofore filed, and at the same time asked leave of the court to file his equitable plea.

Coming now to the consideration of the declaration and the plea now sought to be filed as an equitable plea, it is necessary to set out the seventh count of the declaration and that only. The common counts are therefore omitted. And for the proper consideration of such plea it is hereinafter set out.

The count is in these words:

And for the seventh count, plaintiff says that the defendant, Henry Ford, was on, to wit, March 2, 1908, and for several years prior thereto, engaged in the manufacture of certain automobiles, commonly known as 'Ford automobiles'; that up to a short time theretofore, to wit, the 5th day of January, A.D. 1908, and for several years prior thereto, plaintiff was in the employ of the said defendant as an electrical and mechanical engineer. The defendant being desirous of improving the mechanism of the automobiles which he manufactured did, a short time prior to March 2, 1908, on, to wit, the 5th day of January, 1908, enter into an agreement with the plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff agreed with the defendant to invent a magneto for the defendant that would work on the flywheel of an automobile, for and in consideration of the defendant agreeing that upon the inventing by the plaintiff of such a magneto that the defendant would pay to the plaintiff a reasonable amount as a royalty on each of the magnetos so invented and manufactured and used by the defendant in the construction and manufacture of his said automobiles; that in compliance with the terms and conditions of the said agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff thereafterwards did invent a magneto that would work on the flywheel of a magneto; and on the 2d day of March, 1908, the said plaintiff made due application to the United States Patent Office for a patent to be issued for his said invention, and in due course, to wit, on the 8th day of July, 1913, a patent was issued for said invention, same being numbered 1,066,729, a copy of which patent is hereto attached marked 'Exhibit A' and made a part hereof, said patent being issued to the defendant, Henry Ford, as assignee of Edward S. Huff. That after inventing the said magneto hereinbefore mentioned, this plaintiff continued to experiment and exercise his skill and knowledge as an electrical and mechanical engineer in an effort to improve upon the said magneto so invented as aforesaid by the plaintiff, and did invent a certain new and useful improvement in flywheel magnetos, and did on the 27th day of April, 1908, make due application to the United States Patent Office for a patent to be issued for said invention, and in due course, to wit, on the 26th day of May, 1914, a patent was issued for said invention, same being numbered 1,098,361, a copy of which patent is hereto attached marked 'Exhibit B' and made a part hereof, said patent being issued to Henry Ford as assignee of Edward S. Huff. That the issuing of said patents numbered 1,066,729 and 1,098,361, above mentioned, for the two inventions of the plaintiff, to Henry Ford as assignee of Edward S. Huff, was at the request and authorization of the plaintiff to the Commissioner of Patents of the United States, in furtherance of the conditions of the aforesaid agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. That the defendant did accept the two inventions aforesaid, invented by the plaintiff, which said inventions were not known or used before the invention thereof by the plaintiff, and which were not, at the time of the plaintiff's application for patents therefor, in public use; and the defendant accepted the letters patent issued by the United States Commissioner of Patents for the two said inventions; and the defendant 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 as aforesaid by the plaintiff in the manufacture of his automobiles, known as 'Model T. Ford automobile,' and the defendant 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 as aforesaid by the plaintiff in the manufacture of his tractors known as 'Fordson tractor,' and the defendant 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 as aforesaid by the plaintiff in the manufacture of his trucks known as 'Ford trucks,' and has so used, to wit,...