Miller v. William H. Young's Adm'r.

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BECKWITH
• Citation: Miller v. William H. Young's Adm'r., 33 Ill. 354, 1864 WL 2934 (Ill. 1864)
• Decision Date: 31 January 1864
• Parties: REUBEN MILLERv.WILLIAM H. YOUNG'S Administrator.

33 Ill. 354

1864 WL 2934 (Ill.)

REUBEN MILLER

v.WILLIAM H. YOUNG'S Administrator.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1864.

ERROR to Circuit Court of Logan County.

Young filed his bill against Miller, in the Logan Circuit Court, A. D. 1854, to set aside a conveyance and rescind a contract for the sale of a patent right. The allegations of the bill are substantially as follows: That in the year 1853, Miller, who represented himself as the duly authorized agent of Henry R. Flinchbaugh, who was the owner of a patent cast iron cemetery tomb, and that he was the owner of said patent right to the State of Michigan; that said Miller made false and fraudulent representations concerning the durability, cost and usefulness of said cast iron tomb; that he falsely and fraudulently represented said patent to be for a cast iron tomb, and covering the right to use cast iron for such purpose; that said patent was only for a design for a certain combination of ornaments for a cast iron tomb; that Young, through such representations, was induced by Miller to purchase said pretended patent for the State of Michigan; that in payment for the same, Young conveyed to Miller 160 acres of land in Logan county. The allegation then is, that there was fraud and misrepresentation; that the patent was worthless; that it was not an invention within the meaning of the patent laws, because it was not new and original, and because it was of no utility, &c.

The answer of the defendant is substantially as follows: admits the sale of the patent as stated; admits making the representations charged, but alleges they were only matters of opinion; denies the fraud charged; and to which there was a replication.

The report of the cause, when formerly before this court, will be found in 23 Ill., 453, 455, where the decree of the court below dismissing the bill, was reversed and the cause remanded with leave to complainant to amend his bill, making Flinchbaugh a party, and offering to reconvey the title to the patent, which amendments having been made and the bill taken pro confesso as to Flinchbaugh, and a decree entered against Miller for a rescission and a reconveyance, the cause is again brought up on error by Miller, who alleges that the decree is not supported by the evidence; while on the other hand the decree is sought to be supported by defendant in error on the ground of the invalidity of the patent for lack of novelty in the design, and fraudulent...