Hurd v. Gere
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Judgment affirmed, with costs.— The controversy in this action arose out of a contract, of which the following is a copy: “This agreement, made this 24th day of December, A. D., 1884, between L. D..
Read the full summary
Judgment affirmed, with costs.— The controversy in this action arose out of a contract, of which the following is a copy: “This agreement, made this 24th day of December, A. D., 1884, between L. D.. Hurd, of Wellsville, N. Y., and J. C. Sampson, of Elmira, N. Y., of the first part, and Gere, Truman, Platt & Co., of Owego, N. Y., of the second part, “ Witnesseth: That, whereas, letters patent of the United States were granted the parties of the first part on June 24th, 1879, No. 216,854, and August 21st, 1883, No. 283,712, for alleged new and useful improvements in wagons; and whereas, the…
1Opinion of the Court
Putnam, J.:
It is claimed by the appellants that, under the contract above set out, the patentees conveyed to the defendants, for the whole territory of the United States for the full term of the patent, all benefits and advantages accruing thereunder, and, hence, the latter, under the writing, were in fact assignees, and not mere licensees, and, as assignees, could assert and show the invalidity of the said patent as a defense to the action. (Herzog v. Heyman, 151 N. Y. 587, 592.) We are unable to concur in the views of the appellants that, under the contract, they are to be regarded as…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Littlefield v. PerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Vose v. . CockcroftNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Marston v. . SwettNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Hahnke v. . FriederichNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- American Chlorophyll, Inc. v. SchertzSupreme Court of Virginia · 1940
- Agnew v. Kelsey Wheel Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915