New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-10-09


a. be bill shOad have bsea sed Is 70 srs tie o.
'snsans ~ Opportunity TO sasss On hOaA asay The 80
b, r-ssr.nse to the bis this respect /, sppssn that u,
csuslsr has Get tho ms>r;s pcu Of ths sovD.
rant snd svcrrvd execution ssd persr f -
tam. a. the Defendant sfns ths truth 81 the bill In ~
respect and sets cut the esvsnaru nus ssil - aN
opportusy IN trer ans~er % deay the special esau ~
leg oncer those eovensnts; for that eaa;ty srhs -
Toe del. ndaaf ther obi-ets saas ths bill des
net orios this settlement before tho Coat By sacA aver
mea'' " sra requisits ia order to obtain s2ses psefn-
This may be tras "A. the reason Why ne bill ioes a<
" 90 svesme't Is hat II 70 MOI bill iSr speehs 81
gotn Oond.d upon the letters psfeat and ths
sroend Of ec the b. the defendant Of thase
ana ms sseemen, Is shrssd in the bill 81 fAck.
(Ds, from denying the vadaiy Of the ats ts
sns tssi Toe question nov to Be eossdsE.d Usoa this
principle or authority know of no priasps OF sauifs a.
isre, sps watch woals Justly the dsisaaAa ia Ssrsis
these settlements hs ID induced him to dsssas sss hs
suits 10 relese his claims for damages for former afas
ments cal In and cancel all licenses befbEs atsS san
Surrender the gocds of the defendant which Re hal It.
tscnre Bostcn Nor d. know Of authority " whi0h
The Court would be in permitting Him 70 sasks sscA
deria
TIN, not the offs license, but Of license
reeed with mpoae agreements on tbs part OF the son
pains, already executed and It is here the dsf~sA
en- has In fact and hs sea sdu tied the VALIDITY Of
tire patents and for the pose Of estoppns hiGs
from DENY ing their vadty he has consented verdict az
Jury ssansthm Ach saads OF record to estsbitsh
t am therefore OF opinios that the dstendaass sosA nse
Be permitted 10 eeny The validity Of the CON, anants Pa
tens and that hs IL entitled to bis injunction sccosas "
prayer OF his bill And under the the
complainant 10 also entitled sceoant good Cd
lection from 'hat branch Of the fshe ass loon the wsas
The defendant In his spswsr sets up, By way Of plea thss
the complainant had sde aosnmenes Of nteress
in rs parents James A Dom. John asskas and wiA
Jucson and that they should have been made to the
BIZ This iavOe th' necessity tato .ss n.'ss
Of tboss assgt ments Upon nspectoa appears tact to
agreement with llaAkns license AMI therefore ter
nishss foundation for the objection The asisamsat b
William Judson would appear In the first part OF &c to
yey present iatsrest but In the Ialle part OF ss.
tEcg understood" that M. G0odyeu hal conveyed snd
did not convey to said Jadson he
OF sse or dsposton said inventions pasnt xbts end
that tie ssd VIM Judson sheuld net b cai 70 o2et
enforce the Of sad interest ust deosos OF sAs
Court motion for injunction, by verdict Of ary which
reduces the assignment Juison the
part OF that upoa acsrtan event (which hes ~
yet taksn pace) he JuSson hs have oraa ia >rcst u
the Prov add pstent shts and OF coas~ -
Necessary mshs him party The ssssnm.nt to Der
enerts bot Il 10 sns 20 that OF Judsnu In Ia
custon IN which 10 provided virtually that the cad Deed
yes had conveyed and did convey thing ta
sV,. sSy ri6f aic ,spost or coairoi OF ssii To-
1enuons psleat rights and pro ssry mentioned In ssid
nent. until there should S7Soe0 cred Ted to Dor
eofoins the 10 Of said agreement ~hcn does
not appear 10 have taten rsce wherefore IL
the eptrol OF the said patent rights ucon contingency
which lee not yet occuued | therefore good
Why the comolsBants Dot entitled 10 mis- accosn
eccoIdinp 20 the prayer Of bis biu
But this view Of applies TO the present defend
sntopy sno those holding unde h proper to iaqstrs
whether the compsoant's en,sd 60 HE rsof generally.
and vihout reference 10 these particular coutrsets 6coso
eneIibs that brauch OF the sub sdver
to objection shs tn notice this place
In TIE "a point made ,y the defendant his M
csius That the nplansBt has rg1t 60 mNntzia ke
suit be.ause prior 10 lis .nt he has barssssA
and sold transferred and ssnsusd his interest In the ava
OF damages 70 be recovered AGAINST nfoss Of bic -
tents to o,hes And to sus, dn The objection he rsfes
agreement mste by the complainant with CaOdee as1
other, marked Exhibit upon ,hs examination OF vho
agreement, 10 appears 10 be license, hom ooodys0e
Cspdee and Others to his improvements and psseass o
the purpose only boots and shoes with
sdSed that csneee and his associates should % an
and the same ,sapst oirsces and isfps =
be cone st their expense and that they we're 70 pay me $500
and o. have the avas ell suits which they mfht SOM
mel o. IN the usme the complainant otosrwss and
liberty them TO use his name Ia oil sasss WHARF
mith be deemed proper or necessary oy counsel Tue
deDden to think that by these enants Caudcs
and It's sssocises bouu to defend the patents OF Good
year sesBst psces ia all and - Tho s.A %
sis Of Ill suu which might be commenced ne
damages fer npsemens Of any OF the patents OF the cso
pnsD when secorcpg TO the correct construction ofthess
GOV, ants they limited In their operation TO tho
Of license that ssy to ianussmseA
Of their elusive privilege OF using these u
making boots s,d shoes and although this ssre.m mag
possibly furnish good why In shs order for .ccouo
this particular branch should be excepted rec
son whyit should defect the action We now ipqalrs
whether the complainant Goodyear Is entitled TO the relisl
which he seeks without reference 20 these covenants With
the defendants sud the int ecton taken ev the defend
ant is that the has not established his right n
Much ingenuity hiss bees displayed by c,onss upon this
point bur after all that BIS said upon the subject h 10
reduced 10 this general proposition that Courts Equity
have the right which generally should BE- exercised o.
nvokB the aid Of Jury 10 sse disputed facts bot 70 b
exercise al the discretion OF the COAT and OF tia
prypre, VI adopting such mus depend upon the
@.s| s sasias S'' question: .spsss
to thI CITE hs'np already settled By verdict OF
JURY add eaonot be considered necessary to anticipate
what Dsht De 90 bs adopted this rsspecf
upon any future case which msht s1se
The question rseurs, whether Goodyear. the compslssn
10 entitled to the relief which he asbs without reference -
Ahsaa anla he nd In
qry Order relates 20 'hs p..nt Of $50 susd tho
complainant upon the inven ton Of N. Hayward
The originality OF that inysntsa 10 denied TO the
but Il s alleged that Hayward even had any right
psfent for the posgon " and rubber Tho
same abandoned and given up TO the public By his and
"by Others with bis know ledge, usos and selling boiore
his application for patent"
In order TO understand the beahog Of the law aud ss
evidence upon tn point IL T. nee, @sy 70 esins .nd as
ad he claims his nyeuticn and desires TO secufs By
Letters Pstent the combining of suphlr With Gum Elss-
pointed n his specdcaon or In any other which y
subsi ntiay the same, aud which will produce like e.
"iect And the patent wsf5ed on toe %h asy OF bse-
runy, ID 1899. Upon examining tho testimony on the
poinr, theTe sppesIs yey little any contarisy Hay'
war ws,ergssed in the uns Of 1886 10 The msnaf.ctfs
of ndis.Rubbe for the E,sle India Rubber Co.. Wo-
burn the character Of superintendent Of the msnufas-
tire aud compound part IL appears ~ the t,s iaons
or bi ~. @ s Suss 1877 and
10 the fscue Of ndRuhbcr Gods By the aid Of Sol
phur AID other materials, AID that goods manufss
the ony u .Dy WI that any goods were nanuisc-
tursd during that poilst 10 the manner described 10 ss
patent u 1859 VIM. g. Humphrey, the principal witness
on the part Of The defendant IN that respect spsakiog OF
the materials used BY Harvard IN 1875 and S says they
India Rubber lampbacf, aa5 spirits OF tarpentins al
o. sulphur end white lead used and o. TO the propof
tons he says, do not think the proportions we're aver
definitely Fixed d. not know any definite propofton zssd
% the tine - and wien ss1sd what proportion Of al The
soocs made by that company dan9ths ysanlsst-I we're
prepared By TIE OF sulphur IN some form In tae rubber
pound be the. he ssen't ststs tho proper
ton and tat he did net feel prepared TO gFesa definite
answer" Most all Of the Other Witnesses Tefefed 70 ~
tie defendant efely 20 TO prove the uodspu.d hst tas
be used saph0T in tie 1stlre VI some on h seoas
The fos q. % this petit and appear by oil me eu-
dencs " be- that Hayward icing sssed win imperssce
a glphur In tie Of ndsa aboa eooes con-
,inu.d .snes Of sxpsfin.ns AZ Wolum from the eonse
az S unit The Comp.ny gTobi Stsd he use oil sulphur
Ipg1o1s 10 ,ss goods AID "a Led In ba''ass hsywse
ssrwayf went an with nsnts and In 1879 bfoos
K 70 s1eb perfection q Justify the ssns ost o. pst1es.
which VA done By Goodyear, 40 purchaser oil hsy"~as
nshfs .,,,- 49,. L.. $500.
tks susee the scts d Los ss.n ne on ,s,Sn saaef