Mason v. McLeod
| Citation | 57 Kan. 105,45 P. 76 |
| Decision Date | 06 June 1896 |
| Docket Number | 8614 |
| Parties | T. E. B. MASON et al. v. ALEXANDER MCLEOD |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Decided January, 1896.
Error from Greenwood District Court.
AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
On December 19, 1891, T. E. B. Mason sold to Alexander McLeod the right to manufacture, sell and use a patent for an improvement in pruning-hooks in the undivided half of the state of Texas. The consideration paid by McLeod was a tract of land in Greenwood county, Kansas, together with money and personal property of the aggregate value of $ 800, and in addition McLeod gave to Mason his promissory note for the sum of $ 500. Afterward, on March 3, 1892, a new agreement was entered into between the parties by which McLeod was to surrender his patent to the Texas territory, and give a note for $ 235, and Mason was to sell to McLeod a right to the territory of Utah, the state of South Carolina, together with certain counties in western Kansas, and at the same time he was to surrender to McLeod the note for $ 500. Under this last agreement McLeod surrendered and delivered up to be canceled the patent deed for the Texas territory, and Mason conveyed to McLeod the right to the territory of Utah, the state of South Carolina, and also to certain counties in western Kansas. When the last agreement was made, the $ 500 note given by McLeod in pursuance of the first agreement was held by the State Bank of Le Roy, Kansas, as collateral security. But it was agreed by Mason that he would obtain the note from the bank, and that then McLeod should execute his note for $ 235 and in exchange receive the $ 500 note. Mason never procured the $ 500 note, and McLeod did not execute his note for $ 235. It was agreed between T. E. B. Mason and Laura A., his wife, that she should have the proceeds of the sales of the patent for the state of Kansas, and in pursuance of that agreement the real estate of McLeod was conveyed to Laura A. Mason, and the personal property was delivered to her. The agreements mentioned were all made in the county of Woodson, and at the time of making the same, as well as at the time of conveying the territory, Mason had not filed with the clerk of the district court of Woodson county copies of the letters patent, duly authenticated, nor had he made an affidavit before the clerk that the letters patent were genuine, and had not been revoked or annulled, or that he had authority to sell and barter the right to the patent; and further, the note for $ 500 given in payment of said patent did not have the words, "Given for a patent-right," written or printed therein. No false or fraudulent representations were made by Mason concerning the right to territory in the state of Texas at the time of making the sale, or concerning the new territory of Utah, South Carolina, and part of western Kansas.
On March 17, 1892, McLeod brought an action against T. E. B. and Laura A. Mason to annul the contract made between them, to set aside the deed to the land in Greenwood county which he had conveyed for the patent-right, to cancel the $ 500 note which was still in the possession of Mason, and to recover the value of the personal property which had been transferred as a part of the consideration for the patent-right. The court, after finding the facts substantially as above stated held that the attempted conveyance of the patent-right was illegal, and the patent deeds void, and that McLeod was entitled to a judgment for the reconveyance of the real estate previously transferred, for the surrender of the $ 500 note, and for the sum of $ 815, the value of the personal property delivered and the money paid for the illegal patent-right. The defendants complain and bring the case here for review.
Judgment affirmed.
R. P. Kelley, and W. S. Marlin, for plaintiffs in error.
Stephenson & Hogueland, G. H. Lamb, and G. E. Manchester, for defendants in error.
OPINION
No attempt was made by Mason to comply with the statutory requirements concerning the transfer of patent-rights, and for this reason the trial court held the contract to be invalid, and adjudged a rescission. The principal question discussed by counsel relates to the validity of the statute in violation of which the contract was made. Among other things, it provides that it is unlawful for any person to sell a patent-right in any county of the state without filing with the clerk of the district court copies of the letters patent, and with them an affidavit that the letters patent are genuine, have not been revoked or annulled, and that he has full authority to sell. It is required that the affidavit shall give the name, age,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woods v. Carl
... ... 118, ... 18 N.E. 271; New v. Walker, 108 Ind. 365, 9 ... N.E. 386; Union National Bank v. Brown ... (Ky.), 101 Ky. 354, 41 S.W. 273; Mason v ... McLeod, 57 Kan. 105, 45 P. 76; Pinney v ... First Nat. Bank (Kan.), 68 Kan. 223, 75 P. 119; ... Tod v. Wick, 36 Ohio St. 370; ... Haskell ... ...
-
McDuffee v. Hayden-Coeur d'Alene Irr. Co.
... ... v ... Harrod, 71 Kan. 565, 81 P. 214; Cashin v ... Pliter, 168 Mich. 386, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 697, 134 N.W ... 482; Mason v. McLeod, 57 Kan. 105, 57 Am. St. 327, ... 45 P. 76, 41 L. R. A. 548; White v. Pres. etc. of Franklin ... Bank, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 181.) ... ...
-
Ratcliff v. The Wichita Union Stock-Yards Company
... ... patent-rights have been [74 Kan. 7] maintained on the theory ... that it affords great opportunity for imposition and fraud. ( ... Mason v. McLeod, 57 Kan. 105, 45 P. 76, 41 L. R. A ... 548, 57 Am. St. Rep. 327; Allen v. Riley, 71 Kan ... 378, 80 P. 952.) ... Public ... ...
-
State v. Cook
...have been overruled by later ones, which distinctly assert the opposite doctrine; as do most of the later cases everywhere. In Mason v. McLeod, supra, which the latest of all these cases coming under our observation, the court, after reciting the several provisions of the Kansas statute, in......