Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1882-01-25
Supreme Court Opinions.

!
Supreme Court Opinions.
The Supreme Court, sitting at Phil
adelphia, among recent decisions has
Just rendered the following in Western
cases, which are of general Importance:
NEGOTIABLE PAPER.
Adam Miller vs.. William Pollock ct
al. administrators of the estate OF
James E. Brown, deceased. Error to
Common Pleas of Butler county.
Samuel g. Brown, who was mem
Der of the firm of Brown Il Irons, sold
out his interest in the firm to Frederick
Miller, who gave bim in payment sew
eral notes drawn by Frederick Miller
to the order of Adam Miller, and in
dorsed by him to Samuel G. Brown.
These having originated in an ordina-
ry business transaction, were undoubt-
edly valid. Subsequently,, and before
maturity, these notes were given by
Samuel G. Brown to James E. Brown,
now deceased, as collateral security.
on the faith of which James K. Brown
discounted certain other large notes,
which were afterwards renewed, but
never paid.
= Suit was brought against Adam
Miller by the Kittanning Insurance
Company as an endorser of the Miller
notes. At the trial of the case it was
ascertained that the Kittan hing Insur'
ance Company was not properly named
as legal plaintiff, but that William
Pollock and others, the administrators
of the estate of James E. Brown, rep
resented both the legal and equitable
interest in the suit, and the Court per-
mitted substitution of the administers
tors for the insurance company as
plaintiffs. The defendant did not plead
surprise aud ask for continuance, but
took an exception to the amendment
The trial proceeded, and the Court be-
low ruled that the larger notes o.
Samuel G. Brown having been dis
counted by James Il. Brown upon the
faith of the Miller notes as collateral
1t constituted a valid consideration,
and being in the hands of bona fde
holder, instructed verdict in favor OF
the administrators as plaintiffs. Adam
Millen then removed the case by writ
of error to the Supreme Court for re
view. In an opinion, delivered by
Sterrett, Justice, the Court holds, first
that the amendment at the trial, by
substituting the administrators OF James
E. Brown, deceased, for the Kittan-
ming Insurance Company as plaintiffs
was proper, the defendant only having
a right 10 plead surprise and ASK fqr q
continuance if he so desired +; and sec
ond, that the notes in suit were not
merely collaterals to secure a pre-ex
isting indebtedness, but were founded
upon new and valuable consideration
passing between the parties at the
time the larger notes were disoountee
and therefore valid in the hands of the
administrators who, as representing
Browns estate, were bona hde holders
and entitled to recover. Judgment
affirmed.
A CONTRACT OF MONOPOLf
J. Dorsey Angler vs. the Eaton Cole
Il Bqrlham GoMpaRY. ErT9r to Com
mon Pleas of Nenahgo county. Or
the llth day of October, 1864, the
United States granted to Frederick
Crocker letters patient for an Improve
ment in lifting pumps and by assign
ment from the patentee j. Dorsey
Angler and Eaton Colo u h4rnhanl
Company became joint owners of the
monopoly j. Dorsey Angler suhse-
quently assigned to the Eaton Cole
Il Burnham Company the letters pat.
ent, with the exclusive right and
privilege to manufacture and sell the
. Cfocker check yalYe,' a patented in
vention,' reserving royalty OF "a 30
on each valve sold, the assignee agree
ing to manufacture sufficient guam
tity of the valves to supply the demand
therefor, and to render a monthly ac-
count of sales. This agreement was
carried out and royalties paid upon all
valves manufactured and sold ptiog to
1876. At this latter date
the Eaton, Cole & Burnham Co. receiv-
ed notice from the owners of letters
patent, granted February Is, 1862, to
James Old, for an Improvement in
> that the Crocker check valve
was ali infringement upon the rights
secured by the letters patent to James
Old. The Eaton Cole & Burnham
Company Immediately notified Angler
of this claim, and declined to furnish
any further statements of sales or pay
over any royalties on the game. 10
November, 1876, a bill in equity was
fled by James Old against the Eaton
Cole & BUrnham Company, in the
Z nited States Circuit Court of the
Western District of Pennsylvania, for
Infringement of letters patent. The
;4it was Discontinued aud tie manu-
facture of the pumps, uuder the patent
Of James Old, making pump substan-
tally like those made by the Eaton
Cole & Burnham Company, by COM
petition forced the latter company to
reduce the price of 'Crocker check
valve J.Dorse1 Angler then brought
suit against the Eaton Cole 4 Burn
ham Company. in the Common Pleas
Of Venango county, to recover the royal
ty on l.2OIvalves sold since 1876.
The Eaton Cole 4 RgrRhsm Qa.4-
pany set pp in the court below as d
defense that Angler had agreed TO give
hem by his assignment q practical
monopoly of the sales of Crocker
check valves, or their substantial e4His-
.leat. and that. owing 70 the competi-
ion with the owners of a patent for
similar device, the monopoly was de-
stroyed, and. therefore, they were not
liable for the royalties. fke Court be-
ow took this view and withheld the
case from the jury. Judgment was
entered in favor of the defendant. An
yier, the plaintiff below, alleging error
n this ruling, brought the case to the
rAn.t t., op nnininn al ffsrp,