Peck v. Collins

• Decision Date: 01 October 1880
• Citation: 103 U.S. 660,26 L.Ed. 512
• Parties: PECK v. COLLINS
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

103 U.S. 660

103 U.S. 660

26 L.Ed. 512

PECKv.COLLINS.

October Term, 1880

ERROR to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Alexander D. Wales for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. M. M. Waters, contra.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEYdelivered the opinion of the court.

This writ of error is brought to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York involving the construction and effect of certain proceedings under the laws of the United States relating to letters-patent for inventions.On the 25th of October, 1865, one Byron Mudge obtained letters-patent for an improved mode of sinking wells.In January, 1866, he assigned to Preston R. Peck and George W. Peck each an undivided quarter of the patent.On the 5th of March, 1866, Mudge surrendered his patent, and applied for a reissue, and at the same time asked that an interference should be declared between him and one James Suggett, who had obtained two patents relating to the same matter, one in March, 1864, and the other in February, 1866.An interference was accordingly declared, and the application for reissue was, of course, suspended.The interference also embraced the application of one Nelson W. Green for a patent, then pending.This interference case was pending before the Patent Office and the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, to which it was finally appealed, until January, 1868, when a decision was reached adverse to Mudge's application for ar eissue, sustaining Suggett's patent, and granting a patent to Green.The effect of these proceedings and of this decision upon Mudge's patent was the matter passed upon by the Court of Appeals.That court held that the patent had thereby become valueless and void for any purpose, except perhaps as it might be ancillary to a bill in equity under sect. 4915 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

The materiality of this decision to that of the case arose from the following facts: On the 24th of April, 1866, after Mudge had surrendered his patent for a reissue and had obtained a declaration of interference, as before stated, he and the two Pecks entered into an agreement with Collins, the defendant in error, to sell to him, for the price of $4,000, one-fourth of the patent, and to give him a deed therefor whenever he should call for it.Collins paid the Pecks their portion of the purchase-money in advance by delivering to them two 7-30 United States bonds for $1,000 each.On the 28th of April, 1866, George W. Peck entered into a further agreement with Collins to convey to him, for the price of $1,500, three thirty-seconds more of the patent, and to give a deed therefor when called upon for that purpose.Collins gave his note for the last-named sum.

As these contracts were made in ignorance of the effect of a surrender of the patent for a reissue, they were afterwards conditionally revoked by returning the consideration money and note to Collins, upon the following stipulations respectively.On the 11th of June, 1866, Collins and George W. Peck executed an agreement of which the following is a copy, namely:

'Articles of agreement made this 11th day of June, 1866, between Truman D. Collins, of Cortland, N. Y., of the first part, and George W. Peck, of Cortland, N. Y., of the second part, are as follows:——

'Whereas the said Peck did, by a contract bearing date April 28th, 1866, bind himself, in consideration of the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, which sum was then paid to said Peck, to deed to said Collins an undivided three thirty-second part of a patent-right entitled a new mode of sinking wells; and whereas said contract was given after the letters-patent had been surrendered up for a reissue, and in ignorance of the fact that under certain circumstances the letters would not be returned to the owners of said patent; and whereas the said Peck desires a release from his obligations under the said contract in case he shall not be enabled to fulfil such obligations:

'Now this agreement witnesseth, that the said Collins, in consideration of the restoration of the said fifteen hundred dollars, agrees to release the said Peck from all obligations he has incurred under said contract, provided said Peck shall not be enabled at any time to fulfil the terms and conditions of said contract.And the said Collins further agrees to pay all that portion of the expenses of the application for a reissue which have been incurred, or which may be hereafter incurred, which it shall be incumbent on said Peck to pay as an owner of said patent, as stated in said patent, viz. a three thirty-second part.The said Collins further agrees to pay to the said Peck the sum of fifteen hundred dollars when the said Peck shall notify him of his readiness to fulfil the said contract by deeding to said Collins his interest in said patent or any reissue which may be granted under said application.

'T. D. COLLINS.

'G. W. PECK.'

On the 6th of July, 1866, Collins, on receiving from the two Pecks the two 7-30 bonds which he had delivered to them, gave them the following receipt and agreement, namely:——

'Received July 6th, 1866, of Preston R. Peck and G. W. Peck, two thousand (2,000) dollars in 7-30 bonds, said bonds to be returned to Preston R. Peck and G. W. Peck as soon as Byron Mudge succeeds in getting a reissue of a patent for putting down wells, now in the Patent Office, or providing the old patent is returned; but if said patent is not reissued or returned, then T. D. Collins in to keep the bonds and surrende his articlehe...