483 ITEDEBAIi B£FOBTBB. �reargued, to the end that thq question may be presented ■whether Milton A. Hamilton, having conferred upon Lombard & Thompson the apparent right to manufacture and sell the patented , invention without restriction or reservation, and the power to assign such right to others without such restric- tion, is not, and the plaintiff, as his assignee, is not, estopped from setting up, as against the defendants, who are innocent third parties, and haye bought in good faith such right, rely- ing upon the unoonditional and unrestricted hcense, the lim- itation or restriction of said lieense contained in a separate instrument not in any way referred to in said lieense. �The amended bill alleged that the defendants had con- fltructed machines containing the patented invention with full knowledge of the facts alleged in the bill, among which facts was the existence of the said two unrecorded instruments. The defendants denied knowledge and notice of the existence of said two instruments. No evidence of aetual notice of either of them to the defendants was given by the plaintijBP. �It is contended for the defendants that a point conclusive against the plaintifif's right was not brought to the attention of the court; that the court held, in its decision on the plea to the original bill, that the words "legal representatives," in the recorded conveyance of August 27, 1866, ineluded "as- signe;" that such conveyance was absoiute and unconditional, as was held in the same decision, except a reservation not applicable to the question in hand; that the evidence shows that the defendants and their immediate assignors were bona Jide purohasers for value, without notice; that it is a rule of law that where the owner of property has con- ferred upon another person a power to dispose of it, and an innocent third party has dealt with such person upon the assumption that he possessed such power so apparently con- ferred, such owner is estopped from asserting that the power was not what it purported to be, but was limited or restricted by some secret agreement; that the purchase by the defend- ants was made upon the faith of the title which Milton A. Hamilton had apparently given to Lombard & Thompson, and it would be coutrary to justice and good conscience to ����
