St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-04-10
Supreme Court.
DECISIONS RENDERED.


Erastus NJ. Deane. respondent, VS.. Lyman D.
Hodge, assignee of st. Paul Harvester
Works, appellant.
Syllabus-In the matter of the assignment
of st. Paul Harvester Works for the benefit
of its creditors Lyman ID. Hodge in the mat
ter of the appeal of Erastus NJ. Deane from
the disallowunce by said assignee of certain
claims of Erastus NJ. Deane against st. Paul
Harvester Works. Where the evidence fails
TO disclose an express agreement the law
may imply contract from the circumstances
or the acts of the parties. And when there
is nothing from which a contrary intention or
understanding is to be inferred, il is a just
and reasonable presumption that he who has
received the benefit of the services or prop
erty of another implicitly, undertakes TO make
compensation therefor. The right to use
patent right or patented invention may be
| the subject of a contract express or implied,
and assumpSit VIII lie upon an implied
contract to recover reasonable license
fees or compensation for such use.
When the owner of a patented invention was
u director and officer of a corporation, and
the latter appropriated and used such inven-
ton with his consent and acquieScense, held
that he was not necessarily precluded from
receiving reasonable compensation there
fore by reason of his relationship TO the COM
pany, but such relationship with other cir
cnmstances was for the jury to consider in
determining the question whether the license
to use the patent should be implied to be used
for or without compensation. A patent reg
ularly issued is prima facie evidence Of the
utility and novelty of the device or invention
covered by it. And where two patents were
issued TO the same party for improvements in
q machine, and an action was brought to re-
cover reasonable license fees for the use of
both, held that recovery might be had for
the use of the same, in so far as IL was found
to contain anything new and prac-
| tically useful in addition to the first.
The hcensee in such case, who has enjoyed
the undisturbed use Of both patents is not
permitted TO raise the question OF the validity
of the second patent as between the hcensor
| and the United States, on the ground that ii
includes claims and specifications also COW
| cred by the first patent. The proper measure
of damages in such cases is reasonable
royalty for the machine and when the inven-
| ton has been used by the licensee only, and
| there is no established royalty, general evil
dence, including the evidence of experts,
tending to show the nature, utility and value
of the use of the patented invention is ad-
| Missile, from the necessity of the case, to
be submitted to the jury under proper in
struction by the court. Order affirmed.
VANDERBURG, ].
SPRING TERN.
| Henry L. Moore, as receiver of John II.
| Moork, appellant, VS.. Joseph NJ. Hayes, re-
| spondent; argued and submitted.
| Monroe Sheire, respondent VS.. o. E. Mills,
| appellant; appeal dismissed.
William A. Cheever. appellant, VS.. Parker
| L. Converse, as administrator Of the estate of
| Samuel L. Richardson, deceased, ct ell,
| respondents; argued and submitted.
| Charles Witt, respondent, VS.. ST. Paul &
Northern Pacific Railway company; motion
to dismiss appeal denied.