Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/489

 GOTIFBIED V. MILLBB. 477 �irregularly executed because it was signed only by Charles P. Smith, president, it was understood by the parties that the title had passed. They evidently proceeded to act upon that supposition; for, as we have seen, Smith at once made an assignment of his supposed inter- est to Gottfried & Holbeck, and Comegys assigned to Stromberg; and then Gottfried, Holbeck, and Stromberg entered into an agree- ment by which they declared that they were jointly interested in the patent, and agreed upon certain matters in which they declared themselves mutually interested, as fully stated in the agreement; so that it has seemed to me that the second assignment from the Barrel- Pitching Machine Company must be held to have been executed rather to correct what was understood at the time to be a technical defect in the execution of the first conveyance from that company than otherwise. �Now, upon this record we und that not only did these three parties, Holbeck, Gottfried, and Stromberg, in October, 1876, declare them- selves to be jointly interested in this patent, but that in December, 1879, they united in the execution of an agreement by which Gott- fried & Holbeck declared that they ratified and confirmed all the licenses to use the patented improvement which Stromberg had pre- viously granted, and all the acts of the said Stromberg. �But it is argued in the brief of counsel that this had reference to the period when Stromberg was in fact a part owner of the patent. This, however, is not consistent with complainant's claim that Strom- berg never was a part owner, and never had any interest in the patent. And in this connection it is a significant fact that if it be held that Stromberg acquired no interest from Comegys, after the execution of the first assignment from the Barrel-Pitching Machine Company, it seems to follow that Gottfried also acquired no interest at that time. Then the question arises, where must we look for the source of Gottfried's title ? And in cousidering that question I have been unable to escape the conclusion that we must look for the source of his title, as he is now seeking to enforce rights against Miller, to the assignment which Stromberg executed to him in 1879; for if Stromberg took nothing from Comegys by the latter's assignment, executed June 7, 1876, then Gottfried took nothing from Smith by virtue of his assignment, executed December 11, 1875, both of which assignments were based on the first traixsfer from the Pitching Machine Company to Smith, Holbeck, and Comegys ; and if all this be so, then the inquiry follows, must not Gottfried, as Stromberg's ��� �