Mexico weekly ledger., 1892-03-10
MEXICO, MISSOURI, THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 1892
parties desired and intended it

Although total failure of consider
alton is not formally pleaded by
plaintiff as the cause of action, yet
in negotiating the truth of defend
ants representations, he, among
other things, alleges that ''the bed
was dangerous and worthless
deadfall and could not be safely
used as bed" A total failure of
consideration is good and COM
plete defence to an action outside of
fraud, but mere inadequacy is not.
In their case the evidence is con-
ficting as to the utility of the in
vention, but the evidence did not
establish that it was a worthless
deadfall, F" or wholly valueless as a
folding bed and hence their defense
unavailable.
At the time of the making of the
contract, defendants application for
patent was pending and undeter-
mined-plaintiff then became the
owner of an undivided half thereof
and whether his legal title came di-
rectly from the United States to him
or indirectly from the United States
through defendant to him was an
immaterial matter-the end to be
accomplished was the vesting of the
right in him and this was done in a
safe and more expeditions manner
than having. the title put in defend
ant after his ownership has ceased,
and then risk something to be done
in the future-the formal consign-
ment-which the death, disability
or refusal of defendant might delay
and prevent for time, to the loss
and expense of plaintiff. Besides it
was the purpose and object of the
agreement between plaintiff and de-
fendant to invest plaintiff then and
there with one-half ownership
in the invention, and it was the
legal duty of the commissioner to
issue the patent to the owners there
of at the time of the issuance.
l have treated plaintiffs alllega-
tons of fraud as true in the main
and considered their legal sufficien-
cy, but when we 60 to the evidence
for the facts, occurring before and at
the time of the trade we do not find
that they substantiate the allegations
of plaintiff-plaintiff was at the time
of the trade conversant with folding
beds-had handled them, of var
ious kinds for many years-thor-
oughly appreciated, in common
with others who were informed, the
great value of a bed dispensing
with weights and using springs
advised and suggested changes and
supposed improvements to defend
ant during the working out of the
idea inspected the models at various
times, proposed the trade first,
himself, and again a second time
and when defendant tells him he
will trade, plaintiff advises with his
friends, gets the opinion of an ex-
pert as to the value Of the invention
and throughout the whole negotia-
ton is cautious audguarded-at the
time of the trade plaintiff knew or
ought to have known far more
about the folding beds than defend.
ant, who was wholly ignorant o.
them, prior to the time he began
work on his invention and it seems
incredible to me with all his light an6
knowledge in the subject that he
would accept the opinion of the op
posite party in interest without
|question and found a trade of thou
sands of dollars upon it. l cam
think that he did.
In conclusion, I don't think eithel
fraud in the contract or want o
utility in the invention has beer
shown. The bill will be dismissed
with judgment for defendant fo
costs. E. M. HUGHES.