Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/468

 ;454 FEDECAIi KEPOBTEE. �•pay any balanise fcheu unpaid to said John Bail & Go. witliin 30 daya thereafter; and on fullpayment of oaid consideration the patents aforesaid and herein m^jitioned are to be aasigned by said John Bail & Go. to said Albert Bail, his heirs or assigne." �On the fifteenth of Pebruary, 1878, John Bail & Go. assigned all their interest and cla,im in said pia,tent8, and in the aforesaid agree- ment.between Albert Bail and. the defendant, to George Cook and Jacob Miller, �On the nineteenth of Noyember, 1878, Cook and Miller served a written notice upon the defendant, in vrhich, after reciting that he had failed to comply with the "conditions of said, license"to manu- facture plows under -said ■ patent, "in not paying the royalties as provided by said license, there .being now due and unpaid to us a large suna as royalty. on said license, in which sum or amount you are now in defatijilt, and having also broken and failed to comply with other tern;is of 8a,id license," they notified the defendant that they terminated; and. annulled hjia license. They subsequently, filed the bill in this case, in which they pray that the defendant's license may be decreed to be iorfeited, that he may be enjoined , from man- ufacturing plows under said patents, and that he may be required to account for and pay the plaintiffs' all royalties for which he may be in arrear, and damages. �The notice of November 19, 1878, assumed, and the bill assumes, that the agreement between Albert Bail and the defendantf contains conditions for the breach of which by the defendant his license to manufacture is revocable ; but the agreement contains nothing of the kind. There is no provision therein for re vocation or forfeiture, and therefore there is no foundation for a decree annulling the license, (McKnight v. Krentz, 51 Pa. St. 232;) certainly none under the evi- dence. But, were it otherwise, such decree would not bc. made upon this bill, for Albert Bail, whose rights are involved, is not a party to the suit. Gloninger v. Hazard, 42 Pa. St. 389. That he bas an, in- terest iu the question of annulling the defendant's license is mani- fest. His assignments of the patents, and of the royalties payable by the defendant, are not absolute, but rnerely as collateral sepurity for a debt due by him to John Bail & Go., and they are expressly iim- ited in their operation to the term of four years. Furtherii5Lore, an important part of the agreement between Albert Bail and the defend- ant, to-wit, that relating to Ball's, commissions upon Sialep,,wap not touched by the assignments. , ,Now, :clearly, a decree annulling tire ��� �