The New York herald., 1922-06-28
Rights Were Sold to Texas
Company, Ignoring His
Share in Profits.
FULL RETURN ORDERED
Justice McAvoy Calls for 70
Patents Involved to Decide
Minor Details.


down a decision which. in time, may
bring ss,O00,00o to George t. Rogers
of Plainfield, n. ].
This will be his share for financing
the early efforts of Joseph H. Adams
in perfecting a process for the de-
carbonization of petroleum-or crack
ing" the petroleum molecule so that
gasoline may be extracted from crude
bill. More than thirteen years ago
Rogers advanced money to Adams
an inventor, while he was working on
n scheme to decarbonize petroleum.
When an apparatus was constructed,
In 1907, Rogers was given a 40 per
cent. interest by reason of his finan-
cal aid.
Later Adams continued perfecting
this general process, and. according to
Rogers, he disposed Of his rights in
an improved process to the Texas
Company without permitting his for
mer associate to share in the royalties.
S'@'N,
20 have enabled the refiners of oil to
obtain Is per cent. more gasoline from
a given quantity of crude oil than by
any other process The royalties which
other companies have paid for the use
of the patent rights are computed to be
not far from s2o.0oo,ooo.
Twenty or More Patents Involved.
Rogers brought suit against Adams
and the Texas Company for the recovery
of mis- alleged interest. Justice McAvoy.
in his decision, holds that Mr.. Rogers is
entitled to a judgment directing the
Texas Company to assign to him the
40 per cent. undivided interest in the
invention. Justice McAvoy also holds
that Rogers's interest will include such
patents for the process as have been
issued or may be issued after April,
1919.
In order for the decree to make spe-
cific direction of the patents to which
the judgment refers to 1t will be neces-
sary to submit to Justice McAvoy the
twenty or more patents and applica-
tions for patents which Adams has as
signed to the Texas Company that he
may determine IL they are for the basic
invention. in which Mr. Rogers acquired
an interest in 1907.
The principle which ruled the case,
according TO Justice McAvoy, was the
inventors quest for "a specific result in
the Decentralization OF petroleum" The
particular process. whether by pressure
or by vacuum as was later developed,
was but n means to the end. and ''the
and advancement of moneys"
Paid for Results.
'1t was the end sought for which
Rogers paid" the decree continues. 81
do not find that Adams really intended
to restrict him in his interest to a
per centum of the invention's results
which arose out of an apparatus having
a capacity for extracting carbon from
oils through internal electric heat main
tained at an incandescent temperature
while the fluid was carried through
the tanks, converter and condenser un-
der vacuum conditions.
"On the contrary, correspondence. cir
cumstance. testimony. photographs. draw
ings and many other types of exhibits
all point to the original intent to trans
fer to the plaintiff (Mr. Rogers) the
results of the basic invention by what
ever mode its ultimate success was ac-
complshed."
The position of the Texas Companv
In the action, Justice McAvoy held. was
almost wholly legal and equitable in its
nature" Careful investigation into the
outstanding rights" should have re-
vealed Mr.. Rogers's interest to the
searcher or examiner for the company
In his investigation of the Adams pat
ents from 1903 to 1915. The testimony,
he said. showed that no inquiry what
ever was made. He added
THE failure to make reasonable in
quiry under the circumstances deprives
them (the Texas Company of the
status of the bona fide purchaser with
out notice, and charges them with a
negligence at the time of purchase OF
the legal title, which, while amounting
to less than a deliberate shutting OF the
eyes to avoid light. amounts to a failure
OF what the reasonably prudent man
would do in the exercise of ordinary
diligence"
Price Once S25,5oO.
The fact that inquiry would have
shown that Mr. Rogers's interest could
have been acquired for $3.50 accord
ing to one of the options affecting a
patent, and that the subject Of discus
sion at the time was now ana when the
balance Of money due was TO be paid,
Justice McAvoy said, does not show that
Rogers abandoned all claims and inter
est In the patents. or released his claims
IN the invention or liquidated his in
terest In a contract Of July, 1907, by
substituting a demand for the amount
of his investment.
Justice McAvoy cites letter written
ty Mr.. Adams to his wife after April
1919. in which he says there Is no
waiver or abandonment or conversion OF
Rogerss per cent interest in the in
vention. Whatever these rights and this
interest were and for whatever price
they might have been purchased at one
time. they were not purchased and ex-
tingulshed, he concludes. and their value
Is not TO be measured by what Mr.
Rogers would have then transferred
them.
Herbert c. Smyth represented Mr.
Rogers. Drury w. Cooper represented
Mr. Adams and /. II. Oeland the Texas
Company.