Simpson v. WilsonAnnotate this Case
45 U.S. 709 (1846)
U.S. Supreme Court
Simpson v. Wilson, 45 U.S. 4 How. 709 709 (1846)
Simpson v. Wilson
45 U.S. (4 How.) 709
The decision of the court in the preceding case of Wilson v. Rousseau, namely that when a patent, is renewed under the act of 1836, an assignee under the old patent has a right to continue the use of the patented machine, but not to vend others, again affirmed.
An assignment of an exclusive right to use a machine, and to vend the same to others for use, within a specified territory, authorizes the assignee to vend elsewhere, out of the said territory, the product of said machine.
The restriction upon the assignee is only that he shall use the machine within the specified territory. There is none as to the sale of the product.
Wilson was the complainant below, who filed a bill, and obtained an injunction against Simpson, Forsyth, and Mills. After sundry proceedings in the case, Forsyth put in a plea, and a rule was obtained, that the plaintiff should show cause why the injunction should not be dissolved. Upon argument, the court dismissed the rule and the case was set down for hearing by consent of parties, the complainants not admitting the facts alleged in the plea, but for the purpose of raising the questions of law which they involved, and obtaining a speedy decision of the same.
Upon the argument, the division of opinion arose which will be presently stated.
The facts in the case were these.
The patent for planing &c., having been obtained by Woodworth in 1828, as has been particularly mentioned in the report of the preceding case of Wilson v. Rousseau, Forsyth, one of the defendants below, became an assignee under that patent for all its rights within the County of Escambia, in West Florida. This took place in 1836.
Woodworth, the patentee, having died, his administrator, in 1842, obtained a renewal of the patent under the act of 1836, and in 1843 assigned to Wilson, the complainant below, all the rights under the extended patent for the States of Louisiana, Alabama, and the Territory of Florida.
On 13 April, 1844, the said Wilson instituted proceedings in equity, in the Supreme Court of Louisiana, against the defendants, on the ground that they infringed on his just rights by setting up and putting in operation the said patented machines in the Territory of Florida, and by vending in New Orleans large quantities of dressed lumber, plank &c., the products of the machines there established.
In May, 1845, the cause came up for hearing, as above stated, when the following points were ordered to be certified to this Court, namely:
"J. G. WILSON v. SIMPSON ET AL., No. 1225."
"This case coming on to be heard on demurrer filed to the plea of Joseph Forsyth, one of the defendants, set down for hearing by consent, and the matters of law arising on said plea, the following points became material to the decision, and being considered, the court were divided in opinion on the following points:"
"1. Whether, by law, the extension and renewal of the said patent, granted to William Woodworth, and obtained by William W. Woodworth, his executor, inured to the benefit of said defendant, to the extent that said defendant was interested in said patent before such renewal and extension."
"2. Whether, by law, the assignment of an exclusive right to the defendant, by the original patentee, or those claiming under him, to use said machine, and to vend the same to others for use, within the County of Escambia, in the Territory of West Florida, did authorize said defendant to vend elsewhere than in said County of Escambia, to-wit, in the City of New Orleans, State of Louisiana, plank, boards, and other materials, product of a machine established and used within the said County of Escambia, in the Territory of West Florida."
"Wherefore, upon the request of defendants' counsel, it is ordered and directed, that the foregoing points of law be certified for the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States. "
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.