Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1850-05-24
The woodsvortl1 Patent.


The subject of WooDwoRTH's Patent for planning
boards has lately attracted considerable attention in
this section At the request Of gentleman interes
ted in the matter, publish the following Opinion
of the Court IN the case carried up on the State of
Louisiana, as follows
James G. Wilson, appl't, Andrew Simpson, f. f.
Simpson, Joseph Forsyth, and Bagdad Mls-On appeal
from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district
OF Louisiana.
Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion Of the court In
the argument of this case counsel for the appellant put
his right the relief sought by his bill upon two points We
The appellants first point is the title and right the
them BY the fraud and article Of EmmOns yaok TOogood
Hasead in procuring from W0odwOrth and Strong the
The fraud alleged in the bill is that Emm6ns having pra-
ted Woodwork invention cOntr7ed by misrepresentation
Hastea and Tack falsely and audulently represented
Woodworth and Strong, his assignee, that
SRS had revived snd
strong regarding it possible that such might be the fact
kapecng fraudulent device, and fearing notwthsand
ing Woodwork knew the invention to be his it might
established against him, executed the agreement the
RECEIVED than EmmOns prated patent.
The is before upon the original BILL and it
afterwards amended and replication. The de-
PENDANTS traverse this allegation of fraud fully persons
situated caH dodeny notice or knowledge about it,
when they became the assgnees of the invention for vaua
e The complainant then must establish his
charge ~ proofs. s We think it has not been done
patent fer what he claimed to be his invention it
worth machine and had been piraed from it, That at the
tmc Emmons applied for patent, he had not in any way
carried his machine into such practical result either in
model execution entte him letters patent To
this added the declaration of two witnesses Harris and
Gibson in Joint deposition one Of them we may suppose
Gibson does that they called Emmons in the city of
DEATH for the purpose of obtaining information in relation
an invention of planning machine said to have been nven
formed Them in the Year 1874 being engaged
erection OF salt watts at Syracuse he had contyed machine
means Of knives upon revolving cylinder That he went
far satisfy himself that boards and plank might be
Joined in that but the machine far
pleted to perform work with it that he left Syracuse in
July 1924 and thought of the subject until after
employed by Toogood Tyack Halstead to defeat it,
Such the testimony this record support the Charge
that the mutual deed of the 18th November 1929 OBJ
tanned by fraud.
that deed that the claim the right
to use the Woodwork machines in their possession.
Apart from the insufciency of such testimony in comb
nation separately to establish the fraud suppose it
had been to by EmmOns it would be only hearsay
not within exception to the rule rejecting hearsay teSt
mGny
1t is not So on account of its being dying decaraonor
made by Emmons variance with his Neither
90 5 a nl
with him. coming from having interest in the
So of one interested in the sub
ect matter OF suit when the regard to that
of evidence looks chiefly to the parties interest," and gives
parties to the record.
is merely hearsayt cannot be made evidence for any
purpose of ITSELF in connection with other the
aided by other evidence
We have put its exclusion the ground stated
of the relations which the record shews Emmons had with
of the parties rather than upon the little credit to
which such declaration from him would be entitled from
the difference and opposition between
have made when he applied and obtained letters
Let suppose however, Emmons to be competent wit
ness avoid instrument fraudulent
vices of himself and his associates and that there were in
in such case-stll the declaration imputed to him. would
not any way disparaged right title
sgnees the deed Of the 18th December 1929 their
right having been acquired without notice Of the fraud which
the complainant says was practsed Woodwork and
The complainant can have no benefit under point
The point upon which counsel rely is the
defendants assgnee under the Decd continue their
machines fraud of the law and in violation of the rights
the complainant The specifications u2der the general
proposition are that the defendants substituted other
first term of WoodwOrths patent That they have
sructed WOodworhs entire combination frames of he
old machines or supplied essential constituent part of it.
to continue those machines which this court said they
had right to assgnees, when this before it,
certified points, in the year 1886 How, 709 Ill
There proof Of either the first second specification
But the questions which argued by COUNSEL when
pairs destroy identity and upon invention when
the thing patented exist exclude the repair
or Of any one part of its
before the court upon the evidence in the record
We admit for such is the rule in Wilson and Rousseau,
How that when the material of the combination
exist in whatever way that may occur that the right to
depends the to make
right to make does not exist there right to rebuild the
combination.
But it follow when of the elements of the
binaton has become SO much worn to be imperative
has been broken the machine longer exists for reso
ration to its original by the who has bought it,
When the wearing injury is partial, then repair
restoration and not reconstruction.
Illustrations of this will occur any from the frequent
repairs of machines for agricultural purposes As
from the repair and replacement Of broken out part
larger and complex combinations for manufactures
either case repairing partial injuries whether they
from accident from and tear only reftng
machine for And it is than that though il
1t is the of the whole of that which purchaser buys
when the patentee sells to him machine and aCeH he
pairs the damages uhic may be done It, tina,
the exercise Of that right Of tch erery mag
gtUe duration that tchich he OtctS
a UhOLe.
This foundation of the right repair and replace and it,
application to the point we are considering will be found
The right to repair and replace such either il
the patentee i'll him who has bought the machine Has the
aentee equitable right force the dsuse OF the
chine entirely account of the inoperaveness of
it. than the purchaser has right repair who has, thu
whole of it, right of use And what harm is done to thu
patenee in the his right of invention when the repair
and replacement of partial injury confined to the machine
which the purchaser has bought
Nothing gained against conclusion by its being sale
that the combination the thing patented and that wheT
its intended result cannot be produced from the deficiency
part OF it, that the invention the particular machine
extinct 1t is not Consisting of parts its action is only
suspended by the want of them and its restoration
produces the result only without the machine having
been made OF course when speak of the right
part of deficient combination the
entirely original and of any other patented thing
which has been introduced into it to aid its intended perform
Nor it that the right replace extends to every
thing that may be patented. Between repairing repa
cling there is difference.
Form be given to piece of any maerial-wood metal
Hcency already known subiec
Tor patent 1t would be the right of purchaser to repair