Hepworth v. Henshall
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 9, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, Samuel Henshall, from decree of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Deo. T., 1890, No. 849, compelling assignment of half interest in patent to plaintiff, John W. Hepworth. Bill in equity to compel assignment of interest in patent.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 9, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, Samuel Henshall, from decree of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Deo. T., 1890, No. 849, compelling assignment of half interest in patent to plaintiff, John W. Hepworth. Bill in equity to compel assignment of interest in patent. The ease was referred to Albert B. Weimer, Esq., as master, who, after stating the pleadings as recited in the opinion of the Supreme Court, reported as follows: “ 3. Nature of the issue: “ It is important at the outset to determine precisely the nature of the issue raised by the pleadings in the case. Defendant’s counsel argued the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Stekrett,
This contention, in the court below, hinged mainly on the alleged oral agreement recited in the third paragraph of the bill.
Among other things, the bill avers, in substance, that, on November 30, 1886, plaintiff and defendant entered into a written agreement of copartnership, for the term of five years, for the purpose of carrying on the business of machinists in the name of John W. Hepworth & Co. The defendant had theretofore applied for letters patent for a seamless knitting machine, not then completed. Those letters were issued July 31, 1888, and the fees…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Ogontz Controls Co. v. PirkleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Berliner v. SchoenbergSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Conrad v. WernerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- McRae v. SmartTennessee Supreme Court · 1907