Woods v. Carl

by the Arkansas Supreme Court

Supreme Court of Arkansas

75 Ark. 328

Woods  v.  Carl

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division
Decided May 6, 1905.

1. NOTE—PATENT RIGHT AS CONSIDERATION.—A note reciting as a consideration the sale of an undivided half interest in a business consisting of the sale and manufacture of a patented article in the State is

sale of a patent right, within the meaning of Kirby's Digest, §§ 513–516. (Page 331.)

2. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS—VALIDITY OF PATENT RIGHT ACT.—The act of April 23, 1891, providing that negotiable instruments executed in consideration of the sale of patented machines or patent rights shall be executed on printed forms showing the consideration, and that no person shall be deemed an innocent holder of such instrument (Kirby's Dig. §§ 513–516), is a valid exercise of police power, and does not impair the rights conferred by the patent issued by the Federal government nor invade the constitutional authority of Congress. (Page 332.)
3. SAME.—If it be conceded that section 4 of the act of April 23, 1891, exempting from the operation of the three preceding sections "merchants and dealers who sell patented things in the usual course of business," conflicts with the clause of Amendment Fourteen of the Federal Constitution guarantying to all persons within the jurisdiction of the State "the equal protection of the laws," the preceding sections are valid and enforceable. (Page 335.)
4. APPEAL—HARMLESS ERROR.—The giving of an erroneous instruction was not prejudicial if the verdict was right upon undisputed evidence (Page 335.)

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division.

EDWARD W. WINFIELD, Judge.

Affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

Appellants sued appellee to recover upon a negotiable promissory note executed by the latter to the Human Gas Company, and which said payee, for a valuable consideration, assigned to appellants before maturity. Appellee, for defense, alleged that "the consideration of the note sued on herein was the sale to him by the said Human Gas Company of a certain patented machine, * * * and the right to the patent thereof in Arkansas, and the said note, not being executed in the form required by law, is absolutely void."

The facts are undisputed. The Human Gas Company, a partnership composed of C. G. Human, Chas. Heberer, and J. W. Hansen, were the owners of the right to manufacture and sell in the State of Arkansas, and other States, a patented machine known as the Human Automatic Acetylene Gas Generator used for the purpose of generating gas; and in consideration of the note sued on, and the payment of the sum of $200, executed to appellee a written contract reciting that they "have sold, and by these presents do sell, to Frank Carl of Little Rock, Ark., party of the second part, an in divided one-half interest in our business to be known as the Human Gas Company of Arkansas for the sale and manufacture of the Human Automatic Acetylene Gas Generator in the said State of Arkansas."

The court instructed the jury as follows: "If you find that this note was given for a patent right machine, or territory, you will find for defendant; if not, you will find for plaintiffs." To which instruction plaintiffs excepted.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiffs appealed.

Mechem, & Mechem, for appellants.

The court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the plaintiffs, and in submitting the case as coming within section 513 of Kirby's Digest. 67 Ark. 575; 70 Ark. 200; 97 U.S. 501; 36 Oh. St. 370; 39 Oh. St. 236; 86 Pa. St. 173; 70 Ill. 110; 37 Mich. 309; 3 Lea, 22; 14 Neb. 134; 23 Minn. 24; 2 Biss. 309; 2 Flip. 33; 25 Fed. 394; 51 Fed. 774; 118 U.S. 356; 120 U.S. 68; 183 U.S. 79; 184 U.S. 540; 127 Fed. 206.

Ratcliffe & Fletcher, for appellee.

The evidence showed that the note was given for a patent or patent right. 17 Wall. 543; 67 Ark. 575. Our statute is not in conflict with the power of Congress. 60 Ark. 114; 70 Ark. 200; 41 L.R.A. 548; 107 Tenn. 499; 108 Ind. 307; 109 N.Y. 127; 102 Ind. 528; 116 Ind. 118 ; 105 Ind. 250; 41 S.W. 447; 86 Pa. 173; 75 Pac. 110; 103 U.S. 344; 97 U.S. 511; 36 Oh. St. 370. Our statute is not in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment. 170 U.S. 293; 173 U.S. 404; 174 U.S. 96; 185 U.S. 308; 194 U.S. 267; 103 U.S. 344.

[Opinion of the court by Justice EDGAR A. McCULLOCH.]