Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/609

■WKIGHT V. BANDEIi. ���59^ ���that the plaiutifE, after he acquired his title, requested said Eandel and his said assignees to assign said patent to the plaintiflf, but h« re- l'used. The prayer of the bill is that the title to said patent No. 192,008 may be decreed to belong to the plaintiff; that the defend- ants assign it to the plaintiff ; and that Eandel assign it to the plain- tiS in accordance with the terms of said assignments of September 19, 1876, and January 31, 1877. �The answer admits that the invention of Eandel, patented in No. 192,008, was made and perfected on August 16, 1876, or prior thereto. It denies that Cipperly, Cole, and Haslehurst, of either of them, at and prior to the date of the assignaient of said invention to them, had any knowledge of said assignments and the contents thereof, made September 19, 1876, and January 31, 1877. It avers that the assignment to them was for a full and valuable considera- tion paid by them, and that the assignment to Smart was for a full and valuable consideration paid by him to Eandel. It denies that at the time of said assignment to Smart he had any knowledge of said prior assignments and the contents thereof; and it denies that at the time of ,said assignment to the Empire Company it had, through its officers, any knowledge of the prior acts and doings of Eandel in relation to said previous assignments made by him. It admits that previens to the date of said assignment to the Empire Company Cipperly, Cole, and Haslehurst had heard that some claim was made by Downer or his assignees to the invention secured by said patent, and understood it to be by virtue of an assignment by said Eandel of future inventions. It avers that the Empire Company paid its assignees a full and valuable consideration for their assignment. �It is proved that Cipperly, Cole, Haslehurst, and Smart paid a valuable consideration for what was assigned to them. No attempt is made to show actual notice to any one but Haslehurst of the prior agreement by Eandel in respect to the sale of improvements. �The answer admits that the invention of Eandel, patented June 12, 1877, was made and perfected "on the sixteenthof August, 1876, or prior thereto, as is alleged in the said complaint." The allegation of the bill is that the improvements covered by the patent afterwards issued June 12, 1877, were "invented and reduced to practice" on or about August'16, 1876, or prior thereto. The assignment of Septem- ber 19, 1876, besides conveying to Smith and Downer each an undi- vided one-third interest in patent No. 166,810, conveyed to them "an undivided one-third each of any improvements or new inventions ��� �