Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/611

WBIGHT V. BANDBL. 597 �September 19, 1876, was broad enough, in its terms, to carry to Smith and Downer each an undivided third of "any improvements or new inventions" which Eandel had made prior to that time "in but- ton-hole attachments or button-hole machines." He had, admit- tedly, before that time, made the inventions embraced in the subse- quent patent, No. 192,008. The agreement, in the instrument, "to assign instruments as stated above," must be read in connection with the prior absolute assignment, in the same instrument, of an undi- vided one-third interest to each of any past unpatented inventions in button-hole attachments or button-hole machines, and is an agree- ment to assign by further papers anything needed either to com- plete the equitable title conveyed, or to perfect legal titles to the pat- ents when they should be issued. The further agreement in the instrument excluding all parties from assigning to any one any inter- est in any patent to be applied for thereafter andobtained thereafter for any improvements which Eandel had already made in button- hole attachments or button-hole machines, is consistent with the con- veyance of such equitable title. The instrument provided that Ean- del should apply for the new patents for the past improvements, but it did not, while assigning tho improvements, provide that the new patents should be issued to Eandel and the assignees jointly. Out of this all the trouble bas arisen. �The assignment of January 31, 1877, by Eandel and Smith to Downer recites patent No. 166,810, and recites the assignment of September 19, 1876, as having conveyed to Smith and Downer an nndivided one-third interest to each in that patent, and in "any im- provement or new invention in button-hole attachments or button-hole sewing machines that the said Eandel might make or produce." It does not add " had produeed," whieh would have been a correct re- cital, but it refers to the paper by date, and as having been recorded in the patent-office, in a specified book and page of transfers of pat- ents. It then recites that Downer "is desirons of obtaining the ex- clusive right, and all the right, title, and interest, in and to the letters patent, and to the rights transferred by the said assignmeuts. " The defendants contend that "the letters patent" mean only letters pat- ent No. 166,810, and that there were no rights transferred to Eandel by the assignment of September 19, 1876. The instrument of Jan- uary 31, 1877, then goes on to say that Eandel and Smith assign to Downer "all our right, title, and interest in and to said inventions, as secured to us by said letters patent and assignment." The defend- ai^jts contend that by that paper Eandel did not assign to Downer the ��� �