THEBBRATH P. CELLULOÏD MANUF'o 00. 149 �ail as individnals to use the patented article. It does not say, in express terms, whether they are to aot jointly or severally. They are to have the full and exclusive rigbtof using t^ema- terial witbin the United States and their territories in ita application to harness, carriage, and trunk trimmings, and for no other use or purpose whatever. It was the interest and design of the patentee to have the material applied as largely as possible to such purpose. To this end the defendant cor- poration required the licensees to covenant and agree to use their best endeavors to make such application and use a profitable and extensive branch of business. In view of this faot, it would seem that the lioensor ought not to complain of any construction which would most extensively introduoe the patented article into general use, by its application to harness^ carriage, and trunk trimmings. �But, without expressing any opinion on this point, I think there is another fact appearing in the case that did not ap- pear in the court below, and which estops the defendant from objecting to the non-joinder of the other licensees as plain- tififs in the suit. The declaration alleges that, previous to the defendant's refusai to furnish celluloïd to the plaintififs, the said George M. Drake, Samuel Coursen, Jr., and Martin M. Drake surrendered ail their right, title, and interest to and in said license to defendant, and the defendant accepted said surrender, whereby the plaintiffs became the sole owners thereof. �The demurrer admits the fact alleged, and we have thns presented this interesting question, where five persons are licensed to use a patented article, and the lioensor afterwards agrees that three may surrender their interest, whether the remaining two may still exercise the rights and privileges conferred by the license. �I can perceive no reason why they should not be aUowed to do so, nor why the defendant, after agreeing to such sever- ancG of interest, should not be estopped from setting up that the released licensees did not join in the suit upon a contraot in which, by their voluntary act, and with the assent of -the defendant, they had no further concern. ����
