Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/372

 360 FEDERAL REPORTER. �the right of forfeiture or reverter was at an end. The strug- gle throQgh the evidence is to show which of the respective parties was delinquent. It is clear that the scheme was to organize a corporation to operate plaintiffs' patent, the pat- ent : to be assigned for designated states at the priee of $8,500 cash, (which was paid,) and a prescribed number of shares in said corporation to be issued to said plaintiffs, with a royalty, Hence, the plaintifis not only received the cash, but the sharea, and became, as such shareholders, interested in the proper conduct of the corporation. �It appears from the evidence that the plaintiffs were the promoters of the scheme, and that the strangers who em- barked in it did so on the faith that the plaintififs would pash the same to a success. The defendant Givens, who seems to have been the victim of this corporate enterprise, became finally the owner of the assets of the corporation, including the right to the patents. He bas not operated under them, nor paid any royalty. The contest is whether, as assignee of the corporate assets, he can hold them discharged of all right of reverter, or whether, from non-fulfilment of the original agreement, it ought to be rescinded. It must be remembered that the original transaction was in 1872, and the failure of the enterprise in 1873. �The excuse for delay in instituting this suit is that nego- tiations for compromise were pending. There is, however, a barrenness of testimony upon matters which might shed some light on the case. A company in Connecticut, which was identified with the defendant company, may or may not have pursued the enterprise with success, and no proper evidence is produced whereby it can be determined what is the real amount in controversy. A sharp analysis of the pleadings and evidence shows that the plaintifis have received more than the f ull value of the patent right ; that they were large stockholders in the defendant corporation, which they caused to be formed on their representations — a speculative scheme; and that through their failure to do what they promised no right of reverter, forfeiture, or rescission exists. �The bill will be dismissed at plaintiffs costs. ��� �