Thibodeau v. Hildreth

• Decision Date: 19 June 1903
• Docket Number: 468.
• Citation: 124 F. 892
• Parties: THIBODEAU v. HILDRETH.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

124 F. 892

THIBODEAU v. HILDRETH.

No. 468.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

June 19, 1903

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.

John S Richardson and William Quinby, for appellant.

Causten Browne (Alexander P. Browne, on the brief), for appellee.

Before PUTNAM, Circuit Judge, and BROWN and LOWELL, District Judges.

LOWELL District Judge.

Hildreth brought a bill in equity against Thibodeau to enforce the provisions of the following contract:

'Whereas Herbert L. Hildreth, of Boston, candy manufacturer, is desirous of having perfected and manufactured a certain machine or machines for use in the manufacture of candy, and especially for sizing, shaping, cutting, wrapping, and packing, also the pulling of molasses candy, and whereas I, Charles Thibodeau, being a skilled mechanic, and desirous of entering the employ of said Hildreth for the purpose of constructing, improving, and perfecting such machinery: Now, therefore, in consideration of such employment, and of the payment of wages to me at the rate of ($3.25) three dollars and twenty-five cents per day, I hereby agree with said Hildreth to enter his employ, and that I will give him my best services, and also the full benefit and enjoyment of any and all inventions or improvements which I have made or may hereafter make relating to machines or devices pertaining to said Hildreth's business. I also further agree that should said Hildreth not desire to patent any of said inventions or improvements, but to keep the same secret, I will do all in my power to assist him in this, and will not disclose any information as to the same, or any of them, except at the request of the said Hildreth.

'Signed at Boston, Mass., this 29th of May, 1897.

'Charles Thibodeau.'

In particular the bill sought a conveyance by Thibodeau to Hildreth of a certain invention named therein, and of an application to patent the same, to which conveyance the bill alleged that Hildreth was entitled by virtue of the contract. Thibodeau filed a cross-bill, asking for the delivery up and cancellation of the contract, on the ground that it was unconscionable, and obtained by fraud. The Circuit Court dismissed both bill and cross-bill, for the reasons set out in Hildreth v. Thibodeau (C.C.) 117 F. 146.

Reasonably interpreted, the contract provided that Hildreth should take the benefit and enjoyment of all those...