Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/787

 772 FEDERAL REPORTER, �Leggett & Co. But it is, nevertheless, true that it was written in bis office, and forwarded therefrom by one of bis responsible aobordi- nates; and affcerwards, as it appears, the item of $50, wbicb Leggett & Co. had charged for their opinion upon the validity of the patent, was placedupon the debit side of an aceount prepared by AUis & Co., and was therein made a charge against Downton. Attempt bas been raade by reference to certain other entries wbich precede that, to show that the entry in question really meant a charge for advertising the opinion of Leggett & Co.; but I do not find any testimony in the case which shows that the opinion was ever advertised; and the amount of the item, as it appears in the aceount rendered to Down- ton, is precisely the same as the amouut of the bill wbich Leggett & Co. rendered to Allis & Co. �The business relations between Allis & Co. and Downton appear to have continu ed to 1877, and it was not until that time that Allis asserted the right and title to the patent which be is now seeking to enforce in this litigation; and it may be generally remarked that from the time this contract of January 24, 1876, was made, until Downton left the service of Allis & Co., and until their business rela- tions were terminated, this patent was treated as belonging to Down- ton, and it was not until difficulties arose between the parties, so far as the court is able to discover, that the olaim now made by Allis was asserted. By these observations the court does not mean to say that during all this period that passed between the execution of the contract and 1877, Allis may not have thought that be had a claim upon the patent. But even if that be so, that is not sufficient, in view of the construction which the court is constrained to place upon this contract, to give to Allis the rights which he is now insisting upon. It must satisfactorily appear that both the parties under- stood and intended that all the rights under the process-patent, orig- inally vested in Downton, sbould absolutely and forever pass to Allis. �It is to be observed also, that, as shown by the testimony, at one time, Allis said to complainant's soliciter that he understood his rights under this contract to be those of a mere licensee, and he did not then claim that be was the actual owner of the patent, �It is true, there is the testimony of one witness to the effect that Downton said he had parted with the patent. And another witness bas testified to a remark which he says Downton made, and which, if made, was to some extent an admission by Downton that he had transferred the patent to Allis. But, considering the case compre- bensively and in all its bearings, and in the light of all the circum- ��� �