Talk:Waterman v. Mackenzie

This page is part of a WikiProject to improve the United States Supreme Court case pages. To participate see the project page.

Information about this edition
Edition:	Waterman v. Mackenzie, April 24, 1886, against James A Mackenzie and Samuel R Murphy, by Lewis E Waterman, claiming to be the sole and exclusive owner of a patent granted to him by the United States on Febrary 12, 1884, for an improvement in fountain pens, and of the invention thereby secured; alleging an infringement thereof by the defendants, and praying for an injunction, a discovery, an account of profits, and damages The defendants filed a plea, which alleged that the plaintiff, at the time of filing the bill, was not possessed, either of the patent or of an exclusive right under it to the whole or any specified part of the United States; for that certain assignments in writing under seal of the patent and invention from the plaintiff to Sarah E Waterman, his wife, from her to the firm of Asa L Shipman's Sons, and from that firm to Asa L Shipman, were made by the parties thereto, and were recorded in the patent-office, at the dates stated below, and that Shipman continued to be possessed of the patent and invention until and including the time of the filing of the bill The plaintiff filed a general replication At the hearing on the issue thus joined, the following instruments, executed in New York by and between citizens of that state, were duly proved: (1) An assignment, made February 13, 1884, and recorded March 27, 1884, from Lewis E Waterman, the plaintiff, to Sarah E Waterman, his wife, of the whole patent and invention (2) A 'license agreement,' made between Mr and Mrs Waterman on November 20, 1884, and never recorded, by which she granted to him 'the sole and exclusive right and license to manufacture and sell fountain pen-holders, containing the said patented improvement throughout the United States,' and he agreed to pay her 'the sum of twenty-five cents as a license fee upon every fountain pen-holder so manufactured by him' (3) An assignment, made November 25, 1884, and recorded November 29, 1884, from Mrs Waterman to the firm of Asa L Shipman's Sons, of the whole patent and invention, expressed to be made in consideration of the payment of the sum of $6,500, and containing this provision: 'The consideration of this assignment is that, whereas the said Lewis E Waterman and the said Sarah E Waterman have on this 25th day of November, 1884, made a joint note of hand for the sum of $6,500, payable to the said Asa L Shipman's Sons three years from this date, with interest at six per cent; now, if the said Lewis E Waterman and myself, or either of us, shall well and truly pay the said note, according to its tenor, then this assignment and transfer shall be null and void, otherwise to be and remain in full force and effect' It also contained covenants of full right to assign, and against all incumbrances, 'except a license to the said Lewis E Waterman to manufacture and sell pens' under the patent, being the license above mentioned (4) An assignment, made November 25, 1884, in consideration of the payment of the sum of $6,500, and recorded November 29, 1884, from the firm of Asa L Shipman's Sons to Asa L Shipman, of all the right and title acquired by the assignment made to them by Mrs Waterman, as well as the promissory note thereby secured .
Source:	Waterman v. Mackenzie from http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/138
Contributor(s):	BenchBot
Level of progress:	Text being edited
Notes:	Gathered and wikified using an automated tool. See this documentation for more information.
Proofreaders: