Oscar Barnett Foundry Co. v. Crowe

• Decision Date: 20 June 1912
• Citation: 80 N.J.Eq. 258,86 A. 915,80 N.J.Eq. 112
• Parties: OSCAR BARNETT FOUNDRY CO. v. CROWE.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

86 A. 915

80 N.J.Eq. 112

80 N.J.Eq. 258

OSCAR BARNETT FOUNDRY CO.

v. CROWE.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

June 20, 1912.

Gummere, C. J., and Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Bogert, Vredenburgh, and Treacy, JJ., dissenting.

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Suit by the Oscar Barnett Foundry Company against Paul L. Crowe. From a decree of the court of chancery for complainant, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

See, also, 74 Atl. 964.

The following is the opinion of Vice Chancellor Howell:

"I do not care to hear you any further, Mr. Tamblyn.

"This case, as I have repeatedly said during its progress through the court, is not a case in which the validity of a patent or patents is involved. If it were, the court would be without jurisdiction; but it is a case in which the rights of the parties are governed by a contract which was entered into between them on the 29th day of January, 1908. This court may, however, look into the letters patent hereinafter mentioned far enough to identify the subject-matter of the litigation.

"At that time, and before, the defendant, Paul L. Crowe, claimed to be the inventor and owner of certain improvements in mechanical stokers for the smokeless burning of bituminous and anthracite coal for use in connection with steam boilers and other furnaces; the contract with the complainant is with relation thereto. That contract recites that he (Crowe) is the inventor and owner of certain improvements in mechanical stokers for smokeless burning of bituminous and anthracite coal for use in connection with boilers and other furnaces; and that the party of the first part (that is, the complainant) was desirous of manufacturing stokers containing said improvements. With that recital the contract proceeds to give to the complainant the sole and absolute license to manufacture and sell chain grate mechanical stokers under protection guaranteed and to be guaranteed by the United States Patent Office to the party of the first part on two patents which appear to have been pending, and a third which was in contemplation. A royalty was provided for the use of the invention, and the license was an exclusive one for the state of New Jersey and for some other states. There was also in the agreement a license to the complainant to manufacture and sell a grate bar in accordance with letters patent which had been issued to the defendant by the Patent Office, and made also in accordance with claims in the formermentioned applications for patents, and also, in all applications thereafter made by the party of the first part, for improvements thereon, and that is repeated in another paragraph of the agreement. Now, I construe that agreement, taken altogether, to give to the Barnett Company, the complainant, the right to manufacture mechanical chain grate stokers in accordance with the letters patent and the improvements which might thereafter be made by the defendant on the appliances described in those letters patent, and that the complainant had the exclusive right, so far as the state of New Jersey was concerned. But you need not go further than this for the purpose of this case; the complainant has the right to manufacture chain grate stokers in accordance with those inventions which are claimed to have been made by the complainant.

"Now, I do not care whether patents were granted on all these applications or not; I don't think it makes any difference. I think when Mr. Crowe sets himself up as an inventor, and for a valuable consideration induces another party to take a license under his so-called invention, or to buy his patents, it does not lie in his mouth to say that the patent is bad, or that the application is for a thing for which letters patent are not allowable; or, in other words, having represented that he has a patentable invention on which he based the contract which furnished him with money, it does not lie in his mouth to say that the so-called invention is not a patentable thing; and, when he gives another man the exclusive right to use the thing which he says is patentable, he has no right whatever to enter into the manufacture of that very same article in competition with the man with whom he has made such a contract, upon a good...