Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1849-1856, 1855-03-29
THE GREAT INDIA RUBBER CASE.
DECISION In Favor OF HORACE II. DAY.


DECISION IN FAVOR OF HORACE II. DAY.
This case has taken so much time in the
United States Courts, and become Of so
mdch general interest, that we give below
short account of the circumstances pro-
ducing the litigation, and synopsis OF the
trial. .... ...l ....f ....g 4. .E..-sd a.s
Prior TO 1885, the manufacture of India
Rubber in this couatry, Though quite exten-
sive, was entirely impracticable, because
the original article Of commerce could not
by any known way be spread upon cloth,
or reduced to paste for that purpose, with.
out first dissolving the same in tho spirits
of turpentine, or some other known solvent,
and as it took more than one gallon of spir-
its of turpentine (the best article known) to
dissolve one pound Of rubber, which cost
about 50 cents, the rubber was made very
expensive, and as the solvent must neces-
sarily DO evaporated after tho goods were
made, much time and labor was required
at the same time the goods were injured by
the use of a solvent. Many inventions had
been made by which to spread the dissolv-
cd gum upon the cleth, but no one suppos-
ed that the solvent could be dispensed with.
In 1895 poor laborer in the rubber-lactory
of the Roxbury Company in Massachusetts,
after years experiment, t,discovered mode
or process by which, by the use Of certain
machinery he could make tho rubber into
a paste and spread it on cloth without the
use of a solvent and with much less labor
and for this he received a patent. This
was the first great step in the Rubber busi-
ness of the country, as it greatly reduced
the cost of manufacture, and made much
better goods. Soon after this, Nathaniel
Hayward, of Massachusetts,, discovered
that sulpher compounded with rubber made
a better article Of goods than the rubber
alone, as it operated as dryer, and for this
he received a patent which was issued in
| the name of Charles Goodyear, which was
also vsluable' invention, though we un-
dersiand Mr.. Hayward claimed the mvon-
ton TO be the result Of dream, and not of
experiment In ls44, Charles Goodyear
being the owner of the Hayward patent,and
still finding that there was difficulty with
the goods, inasmuch US they were affected
by cold, patented a process Of heating tho
goods after they were manufactured by the
Chaifee and Hayward process, in hot, dry
oven, and that heat, SO applied, would rem
der the goods more durable, and, to some
cxte 1t, proof against lrrat and cold. lie
soon camo in possession of the Chaifte pa
tent, 20 called, for mere nominal sum
Chaheo continuing poor, and up to 1850,
tho time OF the expiration of the Chaiiee pa.
tent, The licencecs of Goodyear, whose
agent was WIN. Judson, New York law
yer, manufactured nearly all the goods
made ol India Rubber in the country, un-
der the three patents and there was in
vested in the business an immense capital
and almost th, entire rubber business of the
country was in the hands of this body of IL
censses. Up To 1850 Chaffee had reciev-
cd no substantial equival mt for his inven-
ton, and still continued a day laborer. Al
that time he was induced to agres with Mr.
Goodyear TO convey TO him his extended
patent, should il be extended for the sum
of 100000, and business connection with
Goodyear.
Under this agreement Chaffee proceeded,
with the aid OF Jud,on, TO obtain the exten-
sion--Judson advancing the necessary fees
for the extension. As soon as it was ex-
tended Judson claimed that Chaffee should
make some conveyance OF a right 10 use the
patent to him for hi, benefit and the benefit
OF tho licensees of Goodyear, whose agent
Judson was. Chaffee did make contract
with Judson in writing, which was amend
cd and altered in 1851 and in which Jud
son agreed to pay Chaffse 81 900 per year,
for the seven years, for the use Of The pa
tent for the licenses Of Goodyear, and the
licences to pay the expenses of the extern
sion to Judson--Judson then claiming to
have paid them out of his own pocket. 1t
was shown, at the time Of the extension.
that the extended term was worth S200 900
or 8260, 0,00o yet Judson obtained it al tho
sum Of 81 500 per year for the licenses oil
Goodyear, and bound Chaffee to license no
other one without Judson's consent.
Judson, as Chafiee claims, after time
refused to pay even the annuity Of 81, 500,
and though Judsen and oil the licensees
continued to use the patent, Chaffee, failing
to get his pay on his annuity, revoked the
contracts with Judson, and sold his pstont
to Mr.. Day for which no received large
compensation.
| MIR. Day brought his suit against various
persons and companies, who were using
the patent. The defendant Hartshorn set
up in defence these contracts, between
Ohsfiee and Judson, to protect him, and al.
80 denied tho validity Of the patent De-
fendant blended five special pleas, setting
up these papers and also the general issue.
The plaintiff dcmurred tothe pleas, and, af-
ter argument, the Court sustained tho do
murrers, and then the case came up for
trial on the general issue, before Jury.
The plaintiff clsimed--