Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/445

 EAiriLTûs r. Eïtass'cB'r. d31 �and iiso, and to grant to othera to malie and use, the tliingpat- ented, within and throughout any specified part or portion of the Fnited States. It is only a license. It reserves to the grantor * the right to manufacture the said invention.* What-: ever right to manufacture the grantees acquired by the face of it, Buch right was not exclusive in them; therefore, such instrument was not one required to be recorded. Nor were the other two instruments of August 27, 1866, instruments which it was neeessary to record. The recording of the in- strument of August 27, 1866, which -was recorded, was not notice to the defendants that they could safely rely on the record as showing the whole transaction between the parties to the instrument in respect to its subject-matter. The three instruments were ail of them valid without recording, as against the defendants, although bona fide purchasers with- out actual notice. Although the recorded instrument of August 27, 1866, may, on its face, convey the right to make to the grantees, seeing it on the record is of no more avail to the defendants than if they had seen îtoutof the record. The existence of the three instruments, taken .together, as limiting the right of Lombard & Thompson, affeots the defend- ants with the consequences of such limitation, for they oan have no greater right than Lombard & Thompson had." �Before any order overruling the plea to the amended bill. has been made, the defendants now present a petition to the •court for a rehearing or a refargument of the case. The ground of the application is set forth in an afiSdavit made by Mr. CogsweU, the counsel for the defendants, who prepared the brief for the defendants, on the plea to the amended bill, which states that he understood that the case turned on actual notice to the defendants' assîgnors of the unre- «orded agreements between them and Milton A. Hamiltbn,lim- iting, as was claimed, the operation Of the license given by the lattertosuchissignors; that he was furnished with the iplain- tiff's brief just before the case was submitted to the court, and the question upon which the case was deoided did not* attract his attention until he saw the opinion of the court; ihat justice to the defendants reiqnires that the case should lïs ����