Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/155

 148 FEDBBAL BBFOBTEB. �pound for every pound manufactured by them. A contracl with such provisions falls fairly within the definition of a license. �2. Whether it is a joint contract -with ail the licensees, or Beveral with eaoh, is a more difficult question to answer. The difficulty arises from two sources : First, from the loose and careless use of words in the agreement itself ; and, second, from the fact that the law determines whether a oovenant is joint or several much more from the subject-matter of the ûontract than from the words employed. Williams on Personal Property, 304, �The contract on its face is said to be between the defend- ant party of the lirst part, and George M. Drake, Samuel J. Coursen, Jr., Charles M. Theberath, Jacob H. Theberath, and Martin M. Drake, party of the second part, "for themselvea, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, respect- Ively." �The obvions and most uaual meaning of the word respect- ively is "as relating to each." It is not easy to say what the parties meant by its use in the foregoing connection. If it bas reference to the persans composing the party of the second part, as well as their heirs, executors, administrators, and ■ftssigns, do not each of the individuals have a separate and distinct interest in the license, and is not each one entitled to the use of the invention in the manner and upon the condi- tions expressed in the contract ? And why should there be a covenant with the assigns respectively of the licensees, if each one had not the right to individually use or individually assign his iûterest without the concurrence of his oo-licensees ? But it may be admitted that the words uaeà prima facie import a joint covenant ; yet, if the covenantees bave a separate interest in the subject-matter, each may bave a separate cause of ac- tion, and to this effect are ail the authorities. Windham'a Case, 6 Rep. 8a; Slingsby's Case, Id. 19a; Eccleston v. Clipsham, 1 Saund. R. 153-154, (1 ;) James v. Emery, 8 Taunt. 129-246 j Thomas v. Pyke, 4 Bibb, 41S-420. �Does the agreement oonvey to these licensees a separate interest in the subject-matter of the grant ? It licenses them ����