Johnson v. Willimantic Linen Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Bill in equity, brought to the superior court for Hartford county, alleging that the respondents, a joint stock corporation, had entered into a contract with the petitioner, by which they purchased of him a certain patent owned by him, for an improved process for dressing and finishing linen and cotton thread, and agreed to pay him therefor, besides the sum of $2,000 which was paid down at the time, one-half cent for every dozen spools of thread which the respondents should…
Read the full summary
Bill in equity, brought to the superior court for Hartford county, alleging that the respondents, a joint stock corporation, had entered into a contract with the petitioner, by which they purchased of him a certain patent owned by him, for an improved process for dressing and finishing linen and cotton thread, and agreed to pay him therefor, besides the sum of $2,000 which was paid down at the time, one-half cent for every dozen spools of thread which the respondents should thereafter manufacture by the process secured by the patent; and praying for an account of the thread so manufactured…
1Opinion of the CourtButler, J.
The first question reserved for our advice in this case must be answered in the negative. The evidence was not admissible.
It is not material to enquire whether or not generally, on the sale of a patent right, there is an implied warranty of its validity. There is undoubtedly a strong current of authority in that direction. And the cases in this country where in actions for the price of a patent right or patented' machine the defendant has prevailed on the ground of a failure of consideration, are quite numerous. Where there was an express warranty, or the vendor by representation expressly…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Jones v. BurnhamSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1877
- Hargraves v. A. B. Pitkin MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1896