Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/723

 LILIENTHAli V. WASHBUEN. 709 �is certainly not admissible until genuineness is established. The contract between Moses and Washburn, having been acknowledged by the parties before a notary and two witnesses, may have the same effect as an authentic aet and prove itself, (see La. E. 0. C. art. 2242;) but it is immaterial, as it concerns only the parties to the act. The motion to suppress should be allowed for all but the last-men- tioned document. �The case then stands on the issue joined on the plea, -without evidence in support save the oath of Washburn to his plea, and the contract between Moses and Washburn; and the question is pre- sented whether this court, being by the sworn allegations of the bill fully vested with jurisdiction in this cause, is ousted of jurisdiction by the unproved plea of respondent that he bas rights under con- tract in the use of said patents emanating from one of the complain- ants ; that the other complainants are without interest, and that the ■parties in interest are both citizens of Louisiana. �The respondent relies entirely on the case of Hartell v. Tilghman, 99 U. S. 547. In that case the want of jurisdiction was held from the averments of the bill, which set forth a contract of lioense, and by a divided court. If the plea in this case were jiroven, the case might stand as well as that of Hartell v. Tilghman; but not being proven, it would seem necessary to overrule it. �The case of lAttlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 205, appears to come nearer this case on the question of jurisdiction. In, that case there was a dispute between the assigner and assignee of a patent^ not con- testing the validity of the patent, and all the parties were citizens of the same state and a unanimous court maintained jurisdiction. At all events, I am satisfied that the plea in this case should be over- ruled. The plea having admitted the main facts alleged in the bill, and not being proved as to the matters alleged in avoidance, the complainants are entitled to a decree as though the bill had been con- fessed or admitted. See Kennedy v. Creswell, 101 U. S. 641. I allow the final decree more freely because I am satisfied that the matters set forth in the plea filed constitute the only defence the respondent has ; and I am f urther satisfied that, if proven to its fullest estent, the complainants would still he entitled to a decree. �The alleged license from Lilienthal to Moses would probably be held to be personal.and local, and not assignable. See Troy Nail Co. V. Corning, 14 How. 193; Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788; Emigh v. Bail/road Co. 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 387. �The wording of the alleged contract shows the intention of the par- ��� �