Wright v. Vocalion Organ Co.

Decision Date31 October 1906
Docket Number644.
Citation148 F. 209
PartiesWRIGHT v. VOCALION ORGAN CO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Benjamin Phillips (Alfred H. Hildredth, on the brief), for appellant.

George B. B. Lamb and George D. Beattys (Alexander P. Browne, on the brief), for appellee.

Before COLT, PUTNAM, and LOWELL, Circuit Judges.

PUTNAM Circuit Judge.

This bill was brought in the Circuit Court by the Vocalion Organ Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey, against Morris S. Wright, a citizen of the state of Massachusetts. The decree was for the complainant and the respondent below appealed to us. It is somewhat difficult to make a concise statement of the facts; and therefore, for that purpose we adopt that given in various extracts from the opinion of the learned judge of the Circuit Court as follows:

'This suit in equity is brought to compel the defendant to assign to the complainant to one-half interest in certain improvements, inventions, and patents in or relative to organs, in accordance with the terms of a written contract made by the parties on May 15, 1901. The suit is brought also to restrain the defendant, his heirs, executors administrators, or assigns, from selling or assigning any interest in said inventions, improvements, and patents to any person other than the complainant during the life of the contract.
'At the time of entering into the contract the complainant was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling musical instruments, including organs, both keyed and automatic. The defendant was the superintendent of the complainant corporation at a salary of $3,600 per year.
'Although only the second and fourth paragraphs of the contract are brought before the court for construction, it is material for certain purposes of the inquiry to examine the whole contract. The contract is as follows:
''Agreement made this fifteenth day of May, in the year nineteen hundred and one, between the Vocalion Organ Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey, transacting business at Worcester, in the county of Worcester, commonwealth of Massachusetts, and in the city of New York, state of New York, party of the first part, and Morris S. Wright of Worcester, aforesaid, party of the second part, witnesseth:
"That for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and other consideration hereinafter expressed the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:
"First. The party of the first part covenants and agrees to employ the party of the second part and does hereby employ the party of the second part, and the party of the second part covenants and agrees to accept and hereby does accept exclusive employment of the party of the first part as superintendent of factories of the party of the first part.
"Second. The party of the second part covenants and agrees that an undivided one-half part of the whole right, title and interest in and to all inventions or improvements made by him during the term of this agreement, in or relative to organs, both keyed and automatic, shall be the property of the first part, and, immediately upon making any such inventions or improvements, the party of the second part covenants to apply for letters patent of the United States therefor, and for such foreign patents therefor as the party of the first part may desire, and to make, execute and deliver all such applications, specifications, drawings and other documents as may be necessary to obtain such letters patent; and the party of the second part further covenants to execute, acknowledge and deliver to the party of the first part a proper assignment for record of an undivided one-half interest in each such invention and in the letters patent when issued-- all, however, at the proper cost and expense of the party of the first part or its successors and assigns. The party of the second part further covenants not to sell or assign his undivided one-half part in and to any of the above-mentioned inventions, improvements and letters patent, which part shall be and remain the exclusive property of the party of the second part, his heirs, executors and administrators, until the expiration of the term of this agreement.
"Third. The party of the second part further covenants and agrees that he will without further consideration than is herein expressed assign and transfer to the party of the first part letters patent of the United States number 509,506 for improvements in reed and pipe organs and will upon request of the party of the first part execute and deliver to the party of the first part a proper assignment of said patent for record.
"Fourth. The party of the second part further covenants and agrees to grant and does hereby grant unto the party of the first part the exclusive right to purchase and use inventions or improvements made by him during the term of this agreement, in self-playing pianos or self-playing devices for playing pianos, upon such terms as to price or royalty and other conditions as may be mutually agreed upon; and the party of the second part further covenants that he will not sell, assign, transfer or in any way dispose of any such invention or improvement to any other corporation or persons than the party of the first part during the term of this agreement.

"Seventh. It is further covenanted and agreed that this agreement shall be deemed to be in full force and effect from and after the first day of July nineteen hundred, and until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and five, and shall terminate on said first day of July, nineteen hundred and five.

"In witness whereof,'' etc.

'The testimony tends to show that, previous to making the contract, Mr. Tremaine, the president of the complainant company, had many conversations with the defendant in regard to his experience and ability in manufacturing, improving, and inventing musical instruments; that the defendant gave the assurance that he could develop and improve the different instruments manufactured by the complainant company; that, in view of these representations made by the defendant, the complainant company was induced to make the agreement now in suit, providing for the increase of the defendant's salary from $3,600 per year to $5,000 per year, with an added percentage based on the value of the output; and that the arrangement under the contract was to continue from July 1, 1900, to July 1, 1905.

'The testimony tends to show that the defendant made improvements and inventions during the term of the agreement, and applied for and obtained letters patent. The complainant requested the defendant to assign to it an undivided one-half interest in these improvements and letters patent, alleging that they were improvements or inventions in or relative to organs both keyed and automatic. The defendant refused to do this.

'The evidence tends to show that the defendant made certain inventions in the musical are, for which application for letters patent was made and allowed. The testimony also tends to show that all these alleged improvements and inventions were applicable equally as well to organs as to piano-players. The complainant contends that all these improvements and inventions come under the terms of the second paragraph of the agreement, because they are improvements and inventions 'in or relative to organs both keyed and automatic.' And the complainant insists that these...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Guth v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • October 1, 1934
    ...6); Triumph Elec. Co. v. Thullen, 235 F. 74 (C. C. A. 3); New Jersey Zinc Co. v. Singmaster (D. C.) 4 F. Supp. 967; Wright v. Vocalion Organ Co., 148 F. 209 (C. C. A. 1); Hulse v. Bonsack Mach. Co., 65 F. 864 (C. C. A. 4); Thompson v. Automatic Fire Prot. Co., 155 F. 548 (C. C. N. Y.); Mart......
  • American Circular Loom Co. v. Wilson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 4, 1908
    ......v. Hulse (C. C.) 57 F. 519; Id.,. 65. [198 Mass. 203] . Fed. 864, 13 C. C. A. 180; Wright v. Vocalion Organ. Co., 148 F. 209, 79 C. C. A. 183; Joliet Mfg. Co. v. Dice, 105 Ill. 649. ......
  • Hebbard v. American Zinc, Lead & Smelting Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • February 12, 1946
    ...not contrary to public policy for the employer to take title to the inventions of its employees. 39 C.J. § 168, p. 130; Wright v. Vocalion Organ Co., 1 Cir., 148 F. 209. By all of the authorities it is uniformly held that an employer has an equitable title to all inventions of an employee w......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT