Moorehead v. Davis

• Citation: 92 Ind. 303
• Decision Date: 21 December 1883
• Docket Number: 10,650
• Parties: Moorehead v. Davis
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

92 Ind. 303

Moorehead v. Davis

No. 10,650

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 21, 1883

From the Fulton Circuit Court.

Judgment reversed, at the appellee's costs, for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

M. L Essick, G. W. Holman, and J. L. Farrar, for appellant.

S Keith, E. Myers and J. S. Slick, for appellee.

OPINION

Hammond, J.

The appellee sued the appellant, charging in his complaint, that the appellant, on July 12th, 1881, obtained letters-patent from the United States for the exclusive right to vend a certain improved washing machine in all the States and Territories of the United States; that on May 22d, 1882, the appellant assigned in writing to the appellee the rights to said letters-patent in the counties of Hamilton and White, in the State of Illinois, in consideration of $ 300; that the appellee was induced to make said purchase from the representations of the appellant, which were false and fraudulent, that he still owned the rights of said patent in said counties, but that he had, in fact, prior thereto, assigned and disposed of the same; and that the appellee, before discovering that he received no title to the patent in the counties named, incurred expense in reference thereto in the sum of $ 100. Prayer for judgment for $ 400.

The appellant answered by the general denial and by two special paragraphs, to which there was a reply in denial. No question is made upon the pleadings. The case was tried by a jury, who returned a verdict for the appellee for $ 285.50, upon which judgment was rendered over the appellant's motion for a new trial. The questions presented by the assignment of errors, which will be considered, are properly saved in the record.

The evidence shows, without conflict, the following facts:

In consideration of $ 250 paid by the appellee to the appellant, the latter, on May 22d, 1882, assigned to the former, in writing, said patent for the counties of Hamilton and White, in Illinois. It may be inferred from the evidence that the appellee was induced to make the purchase of the patent for said counties by the appellant's representations of ownership. The appellee received from the assignment a good title to the patent as to said Hamilton county, but none as to said White county. As to the latter county the appellant had previously disposed of the patent.

It was found by the jury, in their special findings, that the appellee was entitled to recover $ 30.50 for expenses incurred before discovering the want of title as to said White county. The evidence failed to show the value of the patent as to White county, compared with its value as to Hamilton county, or otherwise. The appellee made no tender back to the appellant by assignment in writing, or otherwise, of said patent for either of the counties named. It is due to the appellant to state that he claimed in the special paragraphs of his answer and in his evidence, that the contract with the appellee was for the transfer to him of the patent for Hamilton and Whitesides counties, Illinois, and that "White" was,...