CAMPBELL V. JAMES. 847 �The meaning and effect of the agreement are to be judged of in the light of the situation. It recited that the parties to the agreement were interested in the prosecution of a certain claim against the government for the use of this invention, and stated that it was understood and agreed between them that Eddy, Shavor and Corse would "accept and receive in full payment and satisfaction of their claim and demand the sum of $30,000," to be paid out of the moneya to be received, pro- vided it should amount to $62,000, and a pro rata sum if it should not amount to the sum stated, with parties whose interest was $20,000, and Secombe whose claim was $12,000. It is argued on the one hand that this was a conveyance which would eut the rights of Eddy, Shavor and Corse in the patent down to $30,000; and, on the other, that it is a mere executory agreement. �Ail interests in patents are assignable by instrument in writing. No particular form is required, but, still, there must be some operative words expressing at least an intention to assign, in order to constitute an assignment. There are no such words in this instrument. There is no consideration stated for their agreement to accept that sum in satisfaction, when received ; there is not even an agreement to pay it. The sub- stance is that if it is paid they will so receive it. Neither is there any consideration proved. They received no compen- sation or forbearance, nor Secombe any detriment, that is shown. It would not be even an accord and satisfaction of the claim, if Secombe had received the money, and could not even be pleaded as such, for it is a mere accord, without sat- isfaction, which is never a bar. It is wholly executory in character, as to whatever it applies to, depending on future events, and not presently operating on anything. But, if it was an assignment of anything, it makes no allusion to a pat- ent further than to mention a claim for the use of a certain patented eancelling stamp, invented and patented by Norton. It is plain that the claim referred to is under the patent, but a conveyance of the claim would not carry the patent. The patent would still be left, so far as his instrument, in any view, is concerned. ����
