PUTKAM V. HOLLBKDEB. 889 �not by De Quillfeldt alone. The patent was applied for No- vember 30, 1874. Priorto that and on November 24, 1874, De Quillfeldt and Emil HoUender executed an agreement in •writing, under seal, as follows: "This agreement and license made this twenty-fourth day of November, 1874, by and be- tween C. De Quillfeldt, of the first part, and Emil Hollender, of the second part^ witnesseth, that whereas, invention made by C. De Quillfeldt, party of the first part, for which applica- tion bas been made this day to secure letters patent of the United States of America, for an improved ' bottle-stop- per lock," and whereas the party of the second part, Emil Hollender, desires to acquire license and privilege with exclu- sive right to manufacture and sell said bottle-stopper lock, in consideration whereof, he agrees — First, to pay C. De Quill- feldt, party of the first part, the sum of seventy-five (76) dollars, «ash in hand, receipt of which is acknowledged below, and pay ail charges for letters-patent application; ««cond, the party of the second part also agrees to pay the party of the first part a royalty of five per cent. (5) on each and aU such Btopper-locks, at the value of four (4) cents a piece, for a pe- riod of seventeen years from date; third, the party of the second part further agrees to use due diligence and exertion in making known said bottle-stopper, and keeping the market fuUy Bupplied to the best of his ability; fourth, any extra serv- ice rendered on the part of the party of the first part in favor of the party of the second part after this date will not be in- «luded in the above agreement." �Emil Hollender became the subscribing vritness to the epecification signed by De Quillfeldt on his application for the patent. On the ninth of Pebruary, 1875, Emil Hollender not having paid the $75 to De Quillfeldt, De Quillfeldt repaid to Emil Hollender $60 which the latter had paid as expenses of obtaining the patent, and the latter gave up to the former Mb copy of said agreement, and they regarded it as cancelled. On the tenth of February, 1875, De Quillfeldt assigned to Karl Hutter, one of the plaintifs, ail hi? right, title, and in- terest in and to the patent. On the eleventh of February, 1875, Emil Hollender executed to De Quillfeldt a general re- ��� �
