Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/351

 Sie FEDERAL REPORTER. �erwise direct, to a decree ascertaining the riglits and inter- ests of Eddy. �This agreement, as to what the court sbould decide, did not enlarge what would have been before the court with Eddy as a party defendant, without such an agreement, for it would ail the while be necessary to determine his rights in order to settle -what would be left to the plaintiff as the foundation of any decree that might be made in his favor. The court bas directed further evidence to be taken as to whether the in- strument of October 7, 1871, is still in force, or bas been cancelled, and such evidence bas been taken. Eddy was a trustee for Jacob Shavor and Albert G. Corse. Since the commencement of the suit the personal representatives hp-ve conveyed his title, Corse bas conveyed bis, and Eddy and Corse bave made an assignment for the benefit of creditors, ■which the assignees, and those claiming under them, insist carried the patent, and Eddy insists that it did not. ' It is quite obvious from this statement that ail these ques- tioûs are questions of title to the patent which arise under the patent laws. The whole question as to the instrument of October 7, 1871, according to the elaims of counsel on each eide of that question, is as to whether it affected the title by operating to convey a part or not, which is necessarily a ques- tion of title; and it seems to be agreed on ail hands that if it did not aiïect the title the question as to caneellation of it afterwards would be quite different from what it would be if it did; for if it conveyed title caneellation of it would not re-invest the title, and if it was only anexecutory agreement as to the division of money it might well be cancelled by the parties to it. And if the court is to take notice at all of rights acquired since the suit was brought, those rights arise upon the acquisition of title, if they arise at ail, so that ail questions concerning them arise upon the title to the patent, and the right to recover for an infringement of it under the patent laws of the United States. It bas never been doubted but that the circuit courts have jurisdiction of ail such ques- tions, whatever the doubts and decisions may bave been when neither the title itself, nor any question as to whether there ����