WASHEUKN & MOEN MANUf'q 00. V. HAISH. 903 �venLive genius to construct them; (2) a deniai of the valid- ity of said patents for want of novelty, on the ground that barbed wire has been publicly known and used long prior to the alleged inventions ; (3) a deniai of the validity of the several re-issued patents, for the reason, it is insisted, that the inventions now claimed by the re-issues are not found in the original specifications, drawings, and models ; (4) that, even admitting the validity of the letters patent, the defend- ant does not infringe the same, nor any of them ; (5) a de- niai of the complainants' title to the Hunt patent, and their right to maintain this suit upon the titlef shown. �With regard to the last point named, raising the question of title to the Hunt patent, it is sufi&cient, we think, to say that the objection cornes too late to be considered upon the merits of the cause. In the assignment by Hunt of his interest in the original patent he purports to convey ail his right, title, and interest in the said letters patent, "excepting 32 or 83 coun- ties heretofore sold and assigned, " not designating the coun- ties thus previously sold and assigned; and the defendant insists that the conveyance by Hunt is so far ambiguous as that nothing passes by this assignment, because it is uncer- tain what counties were so reserved or had been previously cônveyed. We think it enough to say that this reservation is such as is capable of being made certain by competent evi- dence showing what countiea had been actually cônveyed by Hunt. The bills allege that certain counties in certain states were the ones upon which the exception operated, and the anawers do not traverse or deny this allegation. Besides this, since the assignment from Hunt was made this patent has been re-issued to Hunt's assignee, and we think it must be presumed that the title was fully exhibited to the patent officer at the time of such re-issuance; at least, that a re-issue to the assignee of Hunt raises a presumption of title in the assignee. If the defendant wished to raise the question as to whether the reservation included the territory now in con- troversy, they should have raised it by their answer, or at least have put in proof tending to ehow that the title to some ����
