New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-09-06
THE GREAT SPIKE CASE
REPLY TO A RECENT STATEMENT.

from Saratoga clarifying in the highest term. Henry
Burden Of tbs pl.ce, and animSiverirg upon the
| proceedings Of ChancelO, Wal~o,th. as Master,
oon tie reference in the suit of the Troy Iron and
Nail Factory against Messrs. Corning, Winsiox &
, Homer.
The character of this commune aon is such that
have been induced TO look into the record OF the pro-
ceedipgs referred TO, that. according to your cor
Respondent have awakened the tender senslb.ltles
OF the ladies sojourning at Saratoga. am quite
sure the real paternity of this letter cannot bs mis-
taken. Whoever msy have written out the woris,
the thing originated with Mr.. Burien himself; and
the man whom holds up an honor 70 his coun.
Try furnished the manuscript to the press, and pad
for us publication as an Advertisement
There is now and l suppose always has been, q
class of pretenders who periodically puff themselves
into notoriey and by it the fame of just such
4" h2nor' as shines through this production. But
with this part of the letter have ts to DO. Buy
ing for a price, anonymous reputation Is matter OF
taste, and am not inclined TO question the proPnety
or fitness of the practice in this instance. Qasck
MEG icnes, universal pansceas and certain class OF
genius always require such aids.
In 1919. Henry Burden instituted suit against
Messrs. Corning, Wnsow & Homer for the violation
of patent granted to him the I'd September 1870
for an Improvement in machinery for the manufac-
ture of hook-hesded spikes and in 1874 filed bill in
equity to restrain the defendants from using his pat
ented machinery in the manufacture of ,uch spikes
Before that time, John +. Winsow had obtained
patent for improved machinery used in the manufac
ture OF horse shoes. Burden had also obtained a
patent for the purpose In October, 1915, this
suit in equity was still pending the defendants deny
ing the validity of Burdens p,tent Of 1910 tue one
upon which the reference is pending. The conflict
ing claims under the several patents for the manutac
ure Of horse shoes also still continued All the par
ties were neigh bors, and their works within few
rods of each other. Deemng these controversies ir-
furious to all concerned, the parties came together.
and entered into the following contract Of settlements
and conveyance of rights, viz:
Agreement made this fourteenth day Of October,
1876 between Henry Burden of the one part aud Eras
tbs Corning, James Homer, and John f. Wnsow Of
the other part: Whereas suit is now pending in TIE
Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern
District of New York, in favor OF the said Henry Bur
den against the said Corning, Homer, and Winslow,
arising out of the alleged violation and Infringement of
pateIt right claimed by said Burden for the making
Of spike, both parties claiming the right to make said
spike il IL now agreed between the sald parties tha.
tie said suit shall be end hereby Discontinued each
party paving their own costs and it is further agreed,
that the said parties may each hereafter manufacture
and vend spike Of such nd and character as they see
fit, Notwithstanding their conflicting claims to this
time; and the said John +. Winsow, claiming as
pa, enee to have the right for the benefit Of the said
Corning, Homer ant himself, to manufacture the
patent horseshoe and the said Henry Burden also
claim ing such right exclusively is seyeraly agreed
by said Corning Homer, and Winslow that said Bur-
den may manufacture said patent shoes and that
said Corning, Homer and Winslow, will not msnufsc-
ture them; and each party, in consideration OF the
premises, hereby releases to the other or others al
claim demand, and cause OF action, by reason OF any
vioat of the patent rights claimed by them as aore-
ssid to the date hereof:
dated oe.sc., "A. Is45."
Counterpart Of above signed BY Corning, Homer,
and Wnsow.
Now, can any enlightened man read this agreement,
in connection with the then existing differences of the
parties and to any other conclusion than that 1t
was int nded by tito grant to Messrs Corning Wnslow
g. Homer the right to make hook-headsd spikes with
the machinery patented to Burden Is it not IS plain
as that Winslow conveyed by the same instrument,
to the compliments the exclusive right under has
patent to make horse shoesl What else the
subject of agreement They had no other contro-
yersy no other suit, made other claims. For what
other consideration, then, did Winslow convey the
exclusive right to bis patent to the Troy Works
Plainly, for none other. He certainly did not intend
TO gire it away rRhou consideration to party in
litigation with him. The Troy Works have held the
exclusive right to this Horseshoe Machine ever
since. and Corning & Wnflow have never attempted
10 make shoes from that day to this. Each party at
the time regarded this contract az securing to each
what il purpors 10 on its face And they respectively
went on in the manufacture Of spikes and horsehoes
according its provisions and continued to do so for
several years, thus giving practical effect to the in
tenton Of the parties. After some years, the Troy
Iron and Nail Factory, by the direction Of this same
Henry Burden, employed now-deeeased lawyer, for
stipulated share Of the plumber in the event of sue
cess, 10 prosecute Messrs. Corning, Win.ow & ior-
ner for a rotation Of uis same patent for making
kool-headed spikes. The defendants resisted and
pleaded, among other deienses, the agreement made
and above rected. After litigation Of several yesrs
the plaintiff recovered the Court finally holding that
the technical terms of the agreement, Whatever the
parties might have intended did not secure the right
10 the defendants to tie machinery patented to
Burden. And SO the defendants in the face OF TINS
agreement were held TO account to the very party
who made it, for the profits they had made upon the
spikes manufactured by them with the use OF his
patented machinery, subsequent 10 The date o. the
agreement.
Strange and extraordinary the result Of that quit
was the defendants had 10 redress What they had
intended In good faith and what the other party IN
tended at the time the contract was made WA NULL
fed by the decree. II this contract had never been
made the suit of 1914 would have been determined,
the defendants would not have inringed and this suit
would never have been heard Of. And thus the
strange anomaly is presented OF contract intended 70
grant the righ to make particular article being
made the cole cause of a recovery for making that
article If our patent laws incapable Of execution
without such gross injustice as this, it would be far
better II they were sSspt from the statute books. II