Kinsman v. Parkhurst
59 U.S. 289

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Kinsman v. Parkhurst, 59 U.S. 18 How. 289 289 (1855)

Kinsman v. Parkhurst

59 U.S. (18 How.) 289

Syllabus

Where there was an agreement between a patentee and an assignee that the latter should manufacture the machines for a certain time and upon certain terms, it is too late for him, when called upon in chancery for an account, to deny that the patentee was the original inventor of the thing patented.

Even if the patent were invalid, yet that does not so taint with illegality the sales of the machines by the assignee as to affect the claim of the assignor to an account of the sales.

The agreement that one only of the parties should continue the manufacture was not void as being in restraint of trade.

The assignee could not legally purchase the outstanding claim of a third person and set it up against the patentee with whom he had an existing agreement in the nature of a co-partnership.

If the assignee transfers his contract, the person to whom he transfers it is bound by the same equities which existed between the original parties to the contract, having purchased with a full knowledge of the state of things.

If the report of the master was incorrect, exception should have been taken to it in the court below. It cannot be examined in this Court, no exception having been taken.

Page 59 U. S. 290

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law 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.