New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-07-03
Mr. Day. They say he did not stamp his goods


ing enti ely mistaken. From the moment tue 4sres-
mont made, Mr. Day hn.elf COMPLIED vita a 4 its
r.qUiT emebts, and this stamping Of his goods among
them sno ey ,how not single pr,Of Of ntieiity
10 H. uL he found that the object tor which he had paid
bio S5OO0-,hst Is u SAY, whas they call monopoly, II
they pease-was failure think your hOnOrs vii nnd
tbst Gown 10 comparatively late JerlOd Mr. Day "'
sensitive and manly upon the Obligations Of Die icea'e
How else W II they Zoe the fact that hndhy as
busiBess on EUspenders sTuken down, Nj Day HpPhru
hin self To form Of corrugated goods I''e ne
pss Willing 10 pass out Ut the imi OF Ma lcbhsef 10
Intended o. abide nv the Adjustment and did 30 uuh ne
began re ark the sgranr breaches and Voiauons
IL u the other tide Then az last be repudiated u
ctmpsre this broken agreement TO the case "a -
and tenant should br very glad 70 have tneih ' VI
awning Mr.. Day did that would make the ca,s a. az
parallel ~ N .Osed OF violated lease w uu
isund how sudueptly they were WORKING unGeL 'l'o
lcenses-h0w rapidly they Were hiing TOE ilI1 80 -
tb.ir teru, of labor had eXpredWneu ne found tnt oy
,h, fraud ON rim their competition with him, by means
of Goody care failure 10 protect him, was necOps Az
solutel, tuiuiOus-I should be very gao 10 see u1i
sfter he had been driven INFO An abandonment Oi tae
soreeDel and into Reputation OF his contIact-l
tbould be very glad If they can show one tning that ne
did 10 violate his geement lie has nor got IRON them
single oecimen Of inoa rubber goods u Introduce 10
your honors He did not preserve single par Of sus
peuderf nor at, any article of their faorc. liz
does not retain machine any sec Ell OF their arr
for i known through the patent 20 eTeryoo he
retains no particle Ot interest value whatsoever.
There is nothing whatever thai he can surrender. lie
had only 10 declare that he Tepudiaed the co1tracL
They ken him. again, 10 the case OF the tenant wnon
they put into exclusive possession OF the premses "no
pIacset fraud upon the landlord, aud sets up Date
" OF guDs against the party. should be very glad 70
have him chow what Gay or Saturday evenlug they
gave US exclusive possession Of the premises from the
Tune of the settlement. VIII they show Us tOur'tuo'
twenty hours of sucb possession from the third Of Oco
ber 1896 I'LL today VIII they show hour or
half hour half minute, when they do any thing In
spin, and IN substance, In fuhlment OF the settemeh'
They agreed TO SELL and we empted ourselves 70 buy
When they do that t will be time enough TO whether
the relation OF the landlord tenant is not utterly fu
tile, and has no application 10 the case Wneo party
comes 10 YOU and preieHd that he has patent rghtto
SELL OveTbtars GU by the pausibiy of his represen.
taoIs and draws you IN TO pay him all you are worth
for H. aud turns out that he has only purchased the
monopoly Of fraudulent patent, 1t will be time
enough then, | cay, 10 inquire whether the fraud
Ia Ques 10 upon the paentee, who comes aud repre-
himself to be the of patent right which he
does not pC He stands also In the position Ut
party Who prscses fraud, by pretending TO monop-
DIV which be docs not own But have said that II
MIR Days intention to keep this covenant and he dd go
in it's letter and in its spit from the beginning. N1S,
coming - that more general view, submit that this
parry set up no estopei mainly upon the argument,
the bill does not place before the Court the terms
OF the settlement which alleged TO work the estope
and dOes not failure Of performance in such
ter ard in such form that your honors constituting
the Court of Chancery can take notice of their EXIT
ence at all In other VOICES II there anything nos to
be ehed upon in this particular covenant by Mr. Day,
that viii work OUTSIDE OF his license # they rely
that he will keep account boone will refer TO
the proof well to the covenant themselves 10 show
thai inamuch they did not bring that settlement be-
fore the Court In Us terms within the frame of that BILL
iDasmuch they did not rely that settlement AS al
esope and plead the performance Of it on our part
nssnuch as they gave my client chance at all to de-
ny, on bis oath that they have performed auy part OF
the conditions which they undertook perform,
specially submit that, that account the settlement
cannot be Employed as an estope in this cast
| submit Ia the next place, that the same general
| have Iltagf
puts emo 10 every one of these covenants by tner
very terms, and they to be matter OF estopel
By The very rms OF these covenants 1t Is provided,
that G0ody aids and abets, or II Goodyear In any
way fats eecublly ~ protect II he coOniyCs with
those who come into competitor with Mr.. Day tr the
want Of that prOtf ctiOn every covenant p60 dcD 60
Instant comes to end and 10 be operative.
Looking into the evidence before this Court Is per-
ecdy certain that would not be possible for Jersey
Jury, Il Massachusetts Jury, Pennsy vana Jury,
or jury BDyUhe where common sense is recOg-
nzed and Intelligence prevails, TO devise any form OF
escape from this last proposition. But NAV it please
hOLoIs hthep are so very strenuous Tor technical
Law, tuppcsc we treat them to hue technical Law;
sp6 then submit that upon all the authorities II is per-
fecy clear, has been settled by line of from
the third at James, when such old common law law
yeTs as Kenyon, Bullock, Thessnger, and o.her law.
yers, who Illustrated and made respectable the de-
ciDiDg period of the old common law down 10 this
hour by universal aud concurrent of decis-
ions and lsUbnt ihet according TO these authorities
thereb not one covenant In this paper from De gin.
hDB IO Gnu, WHICH NOu'Q not nc OFOugut as bn es-
topel upon Goodyear, for Day performed his cove
nalt or he did nothing. | submit that the authJri.
ties are entirely consistent, and although should
be sorry 10 stand here and defend Mr. Day upon
such techuicalilies As this when he be defended
on 'ucb grounds as a master stand upon; yet,
des, rviug oil the equities they pretend 10 have in
III case they lay hold On common law estopes say
they have not got Them There is not another case
OF estopel such this would be- In all the history of
common w, from Lord Kerr downward-not a case
nom beginning TO end-not one. This covenant that
have BET Insisting upon, then, will leave entirely
out OF view. We disposed of that upon It's facts They
have got then, WHAT Why the acceptance of license
by Mr. Day, that all as II IL had not been adu iged
forty meF, that ust such acceptance and lust sucn
albyag OF tarf had no binding force all but that on
The contrary, he who has been drawn toto cvenanpg
aDo accepting such alcense even in rect action on II
may plead the invalicy OF the patent snd premise By
1he very sapgulLe representations by which the pat
entoe had deceived himself he had, therefore yery
readily deceived his victim 1t is all extraordinary
nor strange that fraud uent paents have been granted
end TO tile hour L has been comm N iraps.cu1n in
cares "a infringement such alleged patents. b. agree
on come terms Of accepting license from patentee
aud 10 agree 10 pay for H. say II Is not At ali xtraor.
binary or strange. How long it has been that the
Courts Of Law have had occasion 10 consider such
uu sacilODs, end pass their opinions uDpn them as
estopels between the parties: and therefore. a I.
rot surprising that we are able 10 find series uf
SojuoleHnons i0r at least fifty sixty years from
ohePpeIos iuuchsone through general treatise, adiu
olceons al law ara ch4ncery, dretiy upon toe sot,,s
tnt o. patent controversies by which this wh1a con
troyeisy d e'oPeis ELECTED, expouuded, deter mined
emo mace Of an easy and satisfactory appn
cation to, aud disposal Of ths case In the drf j.
Is s'iiitd that Ii there Is acknowledgment, or ed
mission IN terms by either Of the pa ties under ses
tnat The patent vaid that will In al FIR ,b
enicomon OF conclude tdr parties but that doctrine
would not have fsrtfings worth of application 70 mia
Gaze The plaintiff does no, brig bill here ~ dr..
you 70 lnsst upon sn est0pcI for that III, H. II
mo mere evidence bi law. He does not DO that on
contrary he goes Al large, and in 90 MANY yy,rds
NH ms tnht MS patent Il valid then in
GA the transaction containing that ackno siedrcert m
FORM II tlhGs Nov, your honors ia the second 3ol
Phus and lie, on toe 5rief and Hiadruarch .i5 and
bo"n al Taylor ever thar, however conclude ooiy
as u me preceding case, and is dirooo on tae f
Atbt 70 when ne can address himself 20 that the de-
ieloebt y know what he is doing; bur the d,n
an come IN, responsive his oath TO the mater that
ls chsIeeo The case Of Meeson s wesby. 800 is con
, '"' a cl, @ter all TO be only evidence to tae
juy Just exactly where II all ought 10 10 On recit.I
10 te'ns Lund on Patents PIP, s heh authority NV
supPosng that is the doctrine and a direct
sGmisslCo ace that GOodyeas Patent /, vail mo
pong u 10 De law that that sdf binds In the direct