i^6 . FEPEBiklJ KEPOQTEfi. �title, and interast." What thatwas has beeen defined. The parties taking from and under them were, by the form of the convejance- from them, referred to ïïamilton to ascertain what, in fact, the "right, title, and interest" of Lombard & Thompson waa. What it was depended on the three instru- ments of August 27, 18t)6, takeii together, and an inquiry of Hamilton would have diaclosed that fact. There was enough, in the terma "right, title, and interest, "in the assignment from Lombard & Thompson, to put any purchaser from them, im- mediate or subsequent, on inquiry; and to charge him with notice of what such inquiry, if made of their grantor, would bave disclosed. While by the recorded assignment of August 27, 1866, the right to make may appear to bave been in- vested in Lombard <& Thompson, yet they did not undertake to convey.what that assignment appeared to convey, but only their "right, title, and interest" as it in fact existed. The, case, therefore, doesnot fall within the principle of the two cases cited for the defendants. In tbis case no one made any inquiry of any person but Lombard & Thompson. Neither Hamilton nor the plaintiff are bound by any suppression of the truth by them, or any failure on their part to disclose ail three of the instruments, so long as they assumed to convey only their "right, title, and interest." It foUows that the prayer of the petition must be denied. ���Whitmun V. Sbaman and another, �(Oireuit Court, S.D. Ifeto York. , 1880.) �L Patent No. 150,921, for au improvement in coal-scuttles, hdd not tn- fringed. �In Equity. �Wheeleb, D. J. Tbîs suit îs brougbt for an alleged in- fringement of letters patent No. 160,921, dated May 12, 1874, granted to the orator for an improvement in coal-scut- tles. As the orator is not the inventor of coal-scuttles, nor ����
