« PreviousContinue »
THE CONSTRUCTION OF
and will abide by and fulfil the arrangement intended to FOR SETTLING be made by these presents; and shall and will, at all times hereafter, at the costs and charges of the said residuary estate of the said A. B., deceased, make, do, and execute all such further and other lawful and reasonable acts, deeds, matters, and things, for the further, better, and more perfectly confirming and carrying into effect the arrangement aforesaid, and for indemnifying and saving harmless the said N. P., G. H., and C. B., party hereto, and every of them, their and every of their executors, administrators, and assigns, in the conduct thereof, as by the said N. P., G. H., and C. B., party hereto, or the survivor or survivors of them, or the executors or administrators of such
ther information on this point will be found, 1 Wms. Exors. 244, 564. For conveyancing purposes, it is seldom of any consequence, whether the husband becomes entitled in his own right, or as his wife's administrator.
In concluding the subject discussed in this note, it will be desir- What is a reable to state the principal points which have been decided, as to what duction into
possession. constitutes a reduction into possession by the husband of his wife's P choses in action.
Of course, an actual payment or transfer to the husband, or to his account, is a reduction into possession ; (Glaister v. Hewer,8 Ves. 195; Ryland v. Smith, 1 My. & Cra. 53; Re Jenkins, 5 Russ. 183); and that, notwithstanding it has been made during the life of a prior tenant for life. (Doswell v. Earle, 12 Ves. 473). But the receipt by the husband of interest on the sum in question, is not a reduction into possession. (Hore v. Woulfe, 2 Bull. & Beat. 424; Nash v. Nash, 2 Mad. 133; Horwood v. Fisher, 1 You. & Col. 110). A judgment obtained at law survives to the wife, if the husband die before execution. (Garforth v. Bradley, 2 Ves. senr. 675; and a suit in equity for a legacy, even after a decree for an account, is not a reduction into possession. (Adams v. Lavender, M'Clel. & You. 41, and cases there cited). Whether a decree in such a suit for payment of the legacy is not, however, a reduction into possession, seems doubtful. (Forbes v. Phipps, 1 Eden, 502; Nanney v. Martin, 1 Cha. Ca. 127; Eden's notes to Hargate v. Annesley, 3 Bro. C. C. 361; Adams v. Lavender, ubi supra).
The receipt, or possession by the husband, as an executor or trustee of the fund, or the payment of it by his directions to trustees for his wife, is not a reduction into possession. (Baker v. Hall, 12 Ves. 497 ; Wall v. Tomlinson, 16 Ves. 413; Ryland v. Smith, 1 My. & Cra. 53).
(See, further, 1 Wms. Executors, 555, 561; and Roper's Husband & Wife, ch. 5, s. 4).
THE CONSTRUCTION OF
wives by the
fulfil the ar
FOR SETTLING survivor shall be reasonably required : AND Each of them
f the said N. P., G. H., and C. B., party hereto, so far as A WILL. relates to his own acts and deeds, and the acts and deeds Mutual cove- of his executors and administrators; and the said N. P. nants for them- onda
and G. H., so far also as relates to the acts and deeds of selves and
their respective wives, (both during coverture and after executors to
they may have become discovert), and of the executors and rangement. administrators of their respective wives, doth hereby, for
himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, covenant with the others and other of them, their and his executors and administrators, that they the said N. P., Q. P., G. H., I. H., and C. B., party hereto, respectively, and their respective executors and administrators, shall abide by and fulfil the arrangement intended to be made by these presents; and shall and will, at the costs and charges of the said residuary estate of the said A. B., deceased, make, do, and execute all such further and other lawful and reasonable acts, deeds, matters, and things, for the further, better, and more perfectly confirming and carrying into effect the arrangement aforesaid, and for indemnifying and saving harmless the said N. P., G. H., and C. B., party hereto, and every of them, their and every of their executors, administrators, and assigns, in the conduct thereof, as by the said N. P., G. H., and C. B., party hereto, or the survivors or survivor of them, or the executors or administrators of such survivor, shall be reasonably required. In WITNESS &c.
AGREEMENT between BritiSH SUBJECTS and
a FOREIGNER, for obtaining Letters Patent for an Invention discovered by the Foreigner (a).
THIS INDENTURE, made &c., BETWEEN A. B., of &c., (a foreigner, residing abroad), of the one part, and
(a) The law respecting patents depends on the statute 21 Jac. 1,
C. D. and E. F., of &c., brassmakers and copartners, of ror obtainthe other part : WHEREAS, the said A. B. has represented
ING LETTERS • PATENT.
Recites, that c, 3, which, after declaring all monopolies void, and contrary to law, A. B. has in
vented a new contains the following saving, (sect. 6):—“Be it declared and enacted, me
ed, mode of manuthat any declaration before mentioned shall not extend to any letters facture. patent and grants of privilege for the term of fourteen years, or under, hereafter to be made, of the sole working or making of any manner of new manufactures within this realm, to the true and first inventor or inventors of such manufactures, which others, at the time of making such letters patent and grants, shall not use; so, also, as they be not contrary to the law, nor mischievous to the state, by raising prices of commodities at home, or hurt of trade, or generally inconvenient; the said fourteen years to be accounted from the date of the said letters patent or grant of such privilege hereafter to be made; but that the same shall be of such force as they should be, if this act never had been made, and of none other.”
It is assumed in the act, and is always considered, that the crown had, at common law, the power to grant patents; the act prescribes the future limits for these grants. (See 2 H. Black. 491).
The only things for which patents can be obtained are, “new manufactures;" they must be manufactures, and they must be new. The word manufactures in the statute is applied, not only to the things made, but to the method and practice of making ; to principles carried into practice in a new manner; to new results of principles carried into practice. (Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. Black. 463, 492; Hill v. Thompson, 8 Taunt. 375; S. C.2 J. B. Moore, 424; Holt, 636 ; 3 Mer. 629; Rex v. Wheeler, 2 B. & Ald. 345; Campion v. Benyon, 6 J. B. Moore, 71; 3 Brod. & Bing. 5; Minter v. Wells, 1 Cro. Mee. & Ros. 505; S. C. 5 Tyr. 163; Derosne v. Fairie, 2 Cro. Mee. & Ros. 476; S.C. 5 Tyr. 393; Lewis v. Davis, 3 Car. & Pay. 502; Hullett v.Hague, 2 B. & Ad. 370; Kay v. Marshall, 1 My. & Cra. 373). But there can be no patent for a mere principle. (2 H. Black. 495; The King v. Cutler, 1 Stark. 355; Minter v. Wells, ubi supra).
The meaning of the word “new,” is partly explained by the statute itself, as indicating manufactures, “which others, at the time of making such letters patent and grants, shall not use;" and has been the subject of judicial interpretation in Lewis v. Davis, 3 Car. & Pay. 502; Lewis v. Marling, 10 B. & C. 22. A patent cannot be obtained for an article which has been publicly vended, even by the inventor himself. (Anon. 1 Chit. 24 b; Lord Cochrane v. Smethurst, 1 Stark. 205; Wood v, Zimmer, Holt, 58; Brunton v. Hawkes, 4 B. & Ald. 641; Hill v. Thompson, ubi supra; Saunders v. Aston, 3 B. & Ad. 881 ; see, too, Davies' Patent Cases, 49; Liardet v. Johnson, Bull. N. P. 76).
A patent may be obtained for an addition to an old machine.
FOR OBTAIN- to the said C. D. and E. F., that he has invented a new and
improved method of manufacturing brass (6): AND WHERE
—that parties wish to enter into agreement respecting it.
(Hornblower v. Boulton, 8 T. R. 95; Harmer v. Playne, 11 East, 101; S.C. 14 Ves. 133; Ex parte Fox, 1 Ves. & B. 67; Huddart v. Grimshawe, Dav. Pat. Ca. 265).
It seems that evidence was refused in an issue whether a patent was generally inconvenient. (Rex v. Arkwright, Bull. N. P.76). And it is now clearly settled that a patent can only be had for an invention which is useful. (Hill v. Thompson, ubi supra; Haworth v. Hardcastle, 1 Bing. N. C. 182; S. C. 4 Moo. & Scott, 720; Bloxham v. Elsee, 6 B. & C. 169; S. C. 9 Dow. & Ry. 215; Manton v. Parker, Dav. Pat. Ca. 332).
The statute also prescribes that patents shall only be granted for new manufactures to the “true and first inventor or inventors” of such manufactures. The inquiry as to who is or are such first inventor or inventors, is necessarily involved in the cases previously cited, with respect to the question whether the patent is new. A man claiming to be an inventor, must not have taken his idea from books or the information of other British subjects; (Rex v. Arkwright, Dav. Pat. Ca. 61, 129; S. C. cited 8 Taunt. 395); but a person who obtains his information from a foreigner, may obtain a patent as an inventor. (Wood v. Zimmer, Holt N. P. C. 98; Edgeberry v. Stephens, 2 Salk. 447; Bloxham v. Elsee, 6 B. & C. 169; S. C. 9 Dow. & Ry. 215). If two persons separately discover the same thing, the one who first publishes his discovery is considered the inventor. (Dollond's case, and Tennant's case, cited 8 Taunt. 395; Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. Black. 487; Lewis v. Marling, 10 B. & C. 22).
The law, with regard to this point, has been materially altered by the statute 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 83, s. 2, which enacts, that if it be shewn, that any person who shall have obtained letters patent for any invention, or supposed invention, was not the first inventor thereof, or of some part thereof, by reason of some other person or persons having invented or used the same, or some part thereof, before the date of such letters patent, or if such patentee, or his assigns, shall discover that some other person had, unknown to such patentee, invented or used the same, or some part thereof, before the date of such letters patent, it shall be lawful for such patentee, or his assigns, to petition for and obtain a confirmation of the former, or a grant of a new patent for the invention, which shall give the patentee, or his assigns, the exclusive use of the invention.
Form of reci tal of alleged invention.
(6) Where, in an indenture, by which a licence was granted for the use of a patent machine, there was contained a recital, that the grantor had invented the machine, it was held, that the parties to the deed were estopped from alleging that the grantor had not invented
agreement and covenants.
As the said A. B. and the said C. D. and E. F. are desirous POR Obtainof entering into an arrangement with respect to the said NPATENTER invention, so represented to have been made upon such terms, and under and subject to such stipulations, conditions, and covenants as are hereinafter contained: NOW Witnesseth THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH, that, for effect- ag uating the said desire, and in consideration of the premises, it is hereby agreed and declared, between and by the parties to these presents, and the said A. B., (so far as relates to his own acts and deeds, and the acts and deeds of his executors and administrators), doth hereby, for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, covenant with the said C. D. and E. F., their executors and administrators, and the said C. D. and E. F., (so far as relates to their own acts and deeds, and the acts and deeds of their executors and administrators), do hereby, for themselves, their heirs, executors, and administrators, covenant with the said A. B., his executors and administrators, in manner following; (that is to say), That the said A. B. shall and will, imme- That A. B. diately after the date and execution of these presents, fully
"Y his invention ; and completely communicate, disclose, specify, and explain to the said C. D. and E. F. the nature of the said invention, so represented to have been made by the said A. B., of a new and improved method of manufacturing brass, and the whole process of the said manufacture, in such a manner as will enable the said C. D. and E. F. to manufacture brass according to the said new and improved method, and to prepare and furnish such specification (c) of
n of the m
the machine. (Bowman v. Taylor, 2 Ad. & Ell. 278; S. C. 4 Nev. & Man. 264). But the estoppel must be pleaded. (Bowman v. Rostron, 2 Ad. & Ell. 295). Hence, in assignments of patents the recital should always be, that the grantor has alleged or represented that he is the inventor of the patent; and in the case of such an agreement as that in the text, the form of recital should clearly be the same, because before the invention is communicated to the intended purchasers, it is impossible to say whether the invention is new and useful, and whether the alleged inventor is the first and true inventor, within the meaning of the statute. There is, however, no estoppel, if the agreement be not under seal. (Chanter v. Leese, 4 Mee. & Wels. 295).
(c) The specification must be so framed as that others may be the specificataught by it to do the things for which the patent is granted; and it tion.