Open main menu


Court Documents

United States Supreme Court

67 U.S. 699

Appleton  v.  Bacon North

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.

On the 7th of December, 1858, the appellants, Appleton, filed their bill in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia for an injunction to restrain the defendant, Bacon, from using, selling or trading with, or otherwise employing a certain patent right for a new and improved mode of folding paper invented by defendant, North, which had been issued by the Patent Office to the defendant, Bacon, on the 10t of August, 1858. And also from constructing or authorizing to be constructed any machine or machines, having or containing the said improvement, &c., as aforesaid patented to him, until the further order of the Court; that he be decreed to surrender and deliver up the said letters-patent to be cancelled, that they be declared void, and for general relief on the ground that the complainants were assignees of the invention, and the patent should have been issued to them, but the defendant, Bacon, had fraudulently procured it to be issued to himself.

The defendant, North, admitted all the facts stated in the bill. The defendant, Bacon, denied all fraud and set up title in himself by reason of certain contracts alleged to have been made by North, (the inventor,) with a Company called the American Book and Paper Folding Company, which he alleged had been assigned to him, and that North had recognized and was acting under the said assignments at the time he made the said improvements.

No replication was filled, but evidence was taken on both sides. North was examined as a witness by complainants, under an agreement saving exceptions to his competency, and his testimony was by the Court ruled to be inadmissible.

The Court held that when part of the improvements were made by North he was in the employment of Bacon, under some agreement, (either express or implied,) and that all improvements made by him while so employed should be the property of Bacon. As to those improvements, they decreed that they rightfully belonged to Bacon, and as to those discovered after he went out of Bacon's employment, they belonged to the complainants.

From this decree cross-appeals were taken by the respective parties to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Bradley and Mr. McCalla, of Washington City, for Appellants, Bacon and North.

Mr. Carlisle and Mr. Webb, of Washington City, contra.

Mr. Justice NELSON.

NotesEdit

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).