The Portland daily press., 1895-12-11
THE HARRIS CAR CASE AGAIN.
An Important Equity Suit Held in the U.
S. Court Yesterday.

S. Court Yesterday.
LII the Circuit court of the United
States district of Maine, in equity, before
Judge Webb, the case of James B. Dunn,
against the Harris Palatial Car company,
and the Harris Car company was taken
up yesterday. The case was opened by
James 2. Farley, Jr., for tie complain
ant, who briefly stated the case of the
complainant The plaintiff claims to
own by purchase letters patent of the
United States, No. 400, 265 and the in
vention secured thereby, which originally
belonged to the Harris Palatial Car
company. Mr.. Dunn claims title because
he purchased the patents at sale ordered
by the Superior court of Massachusetts,,
in equity, in suit pending between A.
d. Mcclellan, plaintiff, and the Harris
Palatial Car COMPANY, as defendent. The
sale took place May 18th, 1894. The de-
PENDANTS eset up an assignment from the
Harris Palatial Car company, to the
Harris Car company, dated April 14th,
1892, and recorded May 18th, 1884, and
claim that the letters patent belong to
the Harris Car company. Tho complain
ant sets up in his bill this assignment,
and alleges it to be invalid, because it
was never authorized by the directors
or stockholders of the Harris Palatial
Car company, and alleges tito be a mere
assignment of Louie j. Harris, former
nraSidant of tho Harriu palat;al Car oo,,,
pany, who acted without authority, and
who executed said assignment in his
own name. The prayer asks that the as
signment of the Harris Palatial Car com
pany be declared invalid, and the Harris
Palatial Car company be ordered to as
sign by their proper officers to be desig-
mated by the court, the letters patent to
the complainant.
Mr.. Farley went deeply into the histo-
ry of this now celebrated case or rather
series of cases, and alleged concerning
the assignment that "There are none of
the usual circumstances attending pur-
chase and sale. On the other hand what
circumstances there are in this suit, as
appear by the pleading and evidence are
all consistent with the assertion that the
assignment is a fraud and inconsistent
with the claim that it was made in good
faith.'
He then related at length and very
much in detail the connection of Louie
J. Harris with the two companies, and
the evidence given by him in the various
suits brought by and against the COM
pany. He read from the evidence taken at
previous hearings, especially in connec-
ton with the Wish injunction, one of
the Important legal proceedings in the
case. He claimed that the assignment
was net recorded in time to be purchas-
er under the order of the court. 1t was
recorded two years after it was dated.
He spoke in caustic way of Mr.. Harris
and of the manner in which he managed
the two companies.
The respondent by his brief claimed
| that the assignment made by the Harris
Palatial Car company to the Harris Car
company. and recorded before the alleged
sale to..Dunn by Special Master Stetson,
is sufficient assignment according to
the laws of the commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts which govern this case The in
strument of assignment follows the ordi-
nary rules governing the contract. The
wording Of the assignment is such as to
show the intention of the parties, refers
to nothing else, and the signature, Louie
J. Harris, President Harris Palatial Car
company and the corporate seal is q
valid assignment. 1t was commended that
President Harris did have sufficient au-
thority to make the assignment, and that
the authority was given at e5ing of
the board of directors held April 9th,
1892. 1t was commended that the sale to
Mr.. Dunn in face of the assignment was
| invalid.
M. L. Sanborn of Boston, president of
the Harris Car company, made the argu-
ment for the respondent. Judge Webb
took the papers and reserved his decision.
1t is probable that this will be the last
of the long series of suits brought in
several states, and in many courts. The
| great fight is now being made over the
ownership of the Harris patents.