The New York herald., 1870-01-08
SUPREME c3UaT -C. ARD-s;.
Important 10 Inventors and Manufacturers.
Before Judge Cardozo.

Important 10 Inventors and Manufacturers.
Before Judge Cardozo
Henry laurence ana Others rs. John Good.-The
plaintiffs are engaged IN the manufacture oil rope
and the defendant was formerly employed as FORE
nsn In their factory. He tnere invented machine
for converting hemp and olner nbres into sivers
After making the invention he, with the consent OF
his employers, the plaintiffs and with the assistance
OF their workmen, built machine. The defendant
testified that he worked over his time and with an
engine supplied al his own expense receiving no
extra compensation for his labor but with the
e na tas oSe 70 se
hs labor or the use OF the machine, ana II II was
not success the machine was 10 be altered 10
OF The old style, when could be aone AT an expense
OF 500, sucn expense TO oe borne by the deeuoaub
Tue machine proved 10 be a success, and has been
in Running oraer since May last.
The plaintiffs now hring tais action for specific
performance and obtained preliminary Injunction
claiming that the defendant asreea to assign TO
them half the invention aud any letters patent to
tie issued for II III consideration OF thcfr bearing ali
expenses
IL appeared in evidence that the defendant had
applied for letters patent 20 himself before COM
rnencng to buid the machine III question, tnat 1t
was no part OF his duty 10 build macnnes and also
tnat he mad betrayed all expenses OF the model the
working OF the engine and FOR procuring the patent.
H. denied In toto the alleged agreement, and con-
tended that ne had only Offered TO make them q
present or the particular machine.
When the plalDtlifs rested Mr. Jacobey Cross for
ihe defendant, moved to dismiss the complaint, on
the grounas that, assuming the contract alleged to
have been made, fun performance their part was
condition precedent 10 their rlgaJ either
at law III equity. and sucn performance had
not been shown; Also that the alleged agree
nent was not established by the evidence
and that assuming It to have reen proven,
IL was Indefinite and uncertain In its terus
and hard and unreasonable Dargain that the con-
sideratIon for the agreement was grossly Inadequate
and, also that the remedy OF the plantins u any
should oe an action Tor damages. the same motion
was renewed AT the close OF the case and the Court
reserved its decision which has been just rendered
As Ioiows:-
Judge Cardozo said-Upon q careful copsiierat,o On
OF the whOe evidence think the case OF the PLAIN
urs must Tail The agreement Is not proved wnen
Hi the evidence IS considered. The whole case Is
not inconsistent wltn the defendants theory tlaG
ony interest the plaintiffs were TO have was III The
one machine. Complaint dismissed. For plaintiffs
Matthew Daley aud u. AcMahcu: for defendants
Flanagan and Gross.
The BOVINE VIII Case As:iia--a Million Dol
lars Involved.
Elizabeth r. Bo1ye rs. Peter Lecei1dge a,td Her.
sna,s,ts p. Du,2ea EGecu1o,S ant Otbers.-The
hearing OF this case resumed yesterday. when
tine counsel concluded the argument on behalf OF
the plaintiff contending that she be permitted TO
manage the property Set apart Tor her aud receive
ITS rents lie further applied that she be allowed to
answer as OF her separate estate Counsel then pre-
sented the answers of the trustees and IL appeared
tnat Samuel Bovine, the grandfather, had brother
Rodman Bovine, who lett the bulk of ms property
10 his brother Samuel, and some of this pro-
perty came directly from him 10 Samuel u. Dur.
yea II. r. Duryea's son. 1t was this property,
coming directly from Samuel Bovine, in which Mr..
Duryea CLAIMED an inheritance from his deceased
son. 1t fli tner appeared from the answers that the
trust being unusually bnrdensone the trustees de-
cllned to act unless duly compensated They claimed
that one reason why the division Of The nJerest
not made was that plaintir mad drawn more for her
snare than the other beneficiary, and an accounting
WAS therefore necessary. The trustees deny any
fairness IN the valuation vi the property any
justice ID iIs distribution. or II any, 1t was 10 the
ndvant91e OF the Dainun. The further hearing ci