New-York daily tribune., 1859-07-30

,ooljaT to m IN bsDd paid by Charles GoYdyeh, ana
in consideration Of other good causes US thereahto
DCving, We hereby assign, uan'ier, aid set s'sf 70
,sid Charles Goodyear hrs eSecutorr sfmris'ra'ors'
ard ssigns, the Wit in license, iYnt and priVHege
and the assig hnsnt thereof 10 u1, and al rgh's
granted or Intended to be granted thereby or incl
dental Their 10 ss full and ample manner as we
pOw hold and possess the same. And We also stipn'
late, covenant and agree thst we VIII mo-, a'ter 'he
Is. day Of Jan1ary, one thousand eight hundred ana
frsyeevsn, directly Indirectly manufacture, or be
concerned ia tte MANUFACTURE OF shed or corrus ited
Irdis Rubber goods" So IT appears that, hnding
their error they corrected it. One release Is inirosed
the assigpmen nj, AMI the other on the original
license.
think, 20 far as have been able to draw any in-
ference rou these hcenses taat they all strengthen
the conclusion TO which l have arnved-thst 10 the
contract of October %, 1885, the term "shirred or
corrugated goods' nesnt ALL KIsDs OF sHlRRED OR
coRRUGATID GOODS, WHETHER ckNEsTED, wovrx,
OR sEwyD, and IS not limited TO the goods msis rn-
Ger the patent OF March 9, 1871.
And this is further apparent when We look at the
license TO Suydam. The argument for the defendants
is, that Goodyear, when he used these words 10
the instrument of October s9 intended only the
goods made under the patent Of March 9th. On the
9th of May, 1914, Goodyear cold to Snydsmthe night
70 manufacture shirred goods under the patent OF
March 9th. The language expressly limits his nights
TO those goods sone. 1t is not, sell the ngnt to
make shrred or corrugated goods," but it rectes:
IAN my night, title, and interest in and to two certain
patents grant,d TO me by the United States Of Amcri
Ca both dated the 9th day Of March 1884, for an im-
provsnert in Irdis Rubber f,brics" Now hold it
10 be very clear that if a man owns two rights TO
nalufcture goods by patents of fferent dates and
he sells TO his right under one specifically and to
the right 70 manufacture the goods generally, as a
matter of course the fair construction Of the latter
grant will be held to be conveyance of the right TO
manufacture under both pSebts; because in the first
giant when he nds to limit it to one, he so recites
Ii face Of the grant, and in the second he does not
1t would be useless fer me to go over all the ground
- very ably occupied by the lssrned counsel on both
sides ind. ed, am not able TO do justice to it, But
HOLD TIE TITLE OF DAY TO BE CLEAR UNDER THE
CONTRACT OF The 18th OF OCTOBER, 1916, TO uss
yULcASIzEp RUBBER IN THE MANUFACTURE OF ALL
sHIRRED GOODS, WHETHER Tidy De cENESrED,
sIwED, or WOVEN.
But will say word or two on the deed Of the 9th
Of May, 1853. IT CERTAINLY EMBRACES ALL THE
ARTICLES coscERSIEG WHICH THIS CONTROVERSY
DAY BY The CONTRACTS OF 1916, THEY PASSED BY
yHE TRIMS OF THE DEED OF 1858. do not SPEAK
sov about the validity Of it-vhether it operates ~
y-tts.i in fstHro-but on its face 1t uses terms
which win embrace these articles. 1t grants to Day
the rsht to use GoOdyeaIs invention OF vulcanized
rabber for the present and all extended or renewed
terms o5 said patent the same msy or can be used
in the manufacture Of all braided woven, cemened,
or sewed fsbics or such or ean be covered or
protected % one or both sides with Substances other
than rubber and in all smooth elastic, shirred goods
Now, if Goodyear bsd the right to make this grant
when he made it, the tile would Of course pass unier
il. lie not perfect deed in itself This deed was
STACKED on the ground that it vas not valid. But 1t
IL deed under seal; was given for consideration,
and it speaks IN present.. deed conveys title, al
though it may have covenants In 1t which have not
been performed. There things which rest in
grant and things which rest in covenant. In almost
every lease deed if not quite every one, there is
something that rests in grant and something that rests
in covenant. The words in this grant are, hereby
SELL license ard convey" There it is IN present.; it
operates grant Then it says, agree to con.
firm." This is a covenant for further assurance.
Then il ssys, a. hereby authorize ana empower the
said Day to my name TO prosecute ant defend the
rights and privileges hereby granted Then it pro-
yidts: And the terms and conditions upon which
this cepse shsl be held and enjoyed, as to bonuses
rot exceeding in the whole the of thirty thousand
dollars, and the tariffs, not exceeding five cents
pound on the product, shall be fixed and determined
by Nathaniel Hayward and Thos A. Jenckes, whose
award il the premises shall be iual, end shall be
made within three months from tie 18th day of June
next"
II -. D..
this covenant in this deed 10 what might be its
effect. But Goodyear made it, and with 1t he made
grand an present. If the covenant fails by his iacaes
the grant nevertheless stands. The covensnt does
not affect the grant; the grant passes the title and
operates prtsent. The cover ant may have become
impossible by the expiration of the time, but yet the
grant stands j. not that we-known principle in
the common law II by the expiration OF time such
a acoverapt becomes impossible, the grant stands.
But had Goodyear this right on the 9Th of May,
1857 That depends upon the construction which
you give ~ the license of Goodyear TO the Naugstuck
Company 90 the 18th of July, 1874. Did that license
carry he right .f the Nsugstuck Company into the
extsnds t.rm Of the patent ofJune Is, 1874
Now, the Supreme Court have decided that cues
tioD there would be epd OF it. But do not con-
cider that question decided n ~ Howard. Courts
called upon onyto decide questions that are be-
fore them. Judge, sometimes, in giving an opin-
ion, uses language which, although it is always en-
titled TO consideration ard respect yet in reference to
questions that not before the Court and the de-
cision of which was not necessary to is decision OF
the questions before it, is not Of binding authority.
The case in 10 Howard this: Day complained
of The violation of the Chai,e Patent by the union
Company. OF course he could not recover unless
be could satisfy the Court that he was the owner
Of the patent. Tie Court decided that he was Got
tie owner.
There 10 poiot in tha. decision which vii read