CAMPBELL V. JAMES. 345 �was an infringement, was before the courts. Hartell y. Tilgh- man, 99 U. S. 547. �Conveyances pendente lîte do net at ail affect the litigatioa as between the parties to the original controversy, unless there are special statutes or circumstances to control ; but courts of justice, even courts of law, and especially courts of equity, often protect the rights of the real owners to the fruits of a recovery, as against those who are nominal but not real own- ers, -whenever their rights may bave been acquired. �AU parties claiming to have derived any title or right from the owners of the patent, according to the decision in the principal case sinoe the commencement of the litigation, have become parties to the record, and submitted the evidence of their claim, and the questions arising therefrom are to be considered. This is not in anywise contrary to the stipula^ tion made under which Eddy became a party to the suit; for these elaims ail arise under the right ôf Eddy as reserved to him in the stipulation, and, when that right is ascertained and distinguished from the plaintifE's, the plaintif bas no right nor apparent interest as to where it shall go — whether to Eddy himself, for himself, and those for whom he was trustee, or to those to whom he and his cestuis que trust may have conveyed that right. �As the case stands, on Ootober 20, 1869, Norton owned and held the title to the patent. He made an agreement in writing with Eddy that he would convey one-third of it to Eddy in trust for himself, Shavor and Corse ; and that $20,- 000 of the first money received on account of the patents should be received by Eddy for himself and them, to settle ail elaims between them and Norton ; and that one-third of ail further receipts should be received in like manner by him, and the other two-thirds by Norton. On the same day, or on the 20th, (the copies differ as to this date, and the originals are not here,) he conveyed the patent to Miss Ingalls. The conveyance to lier was not recorded until after the other, and probably was not intended to be, for she mentioned it in an agreement with W. W. Secombe, dated October 4, 1870, aa having been left unrecorded for a time and afterwards re- ����
