Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

contract of copartnership entered into by himself and B, and which is to go into effect, on the first of January, regarding said business, shall be of force and effect also after his deccaso, and he directs B to liquidate his old business. B, as such, receives from the estate of A, the loan of $10,000, for which he gives his acknowledgment. The two children of A that are of age, demand each from the executor the payment of their one-fifth share of the entire estate, being $50,000, of which $40,000 are invested in bonds, and $10,000 in the firm of A & B, as loan to B. The following questions arise:

1.

Must the executor sell enough bonds to pay to each of the children that are of age, their full one-fifth share (or $10,000) now, or must the two be satisfied to receive at present only one-fifth each of $40,000, and await the one-fifth of $10,000, invested with B until he returns the loan after three years?

2. If B should not make any profits during the next three years to come, what rate of interest will he have to pay to the estate of A for the use of the money?

3. If B should at the end of three years not be able to return the money in full to the estate, but declare himself insolvent, and continue to be so, will such loss fall alike on all five children, even if the two of age now receive their present share in full of $10,000 each, or would it fall merely on those being minors to-day, or on those being minors after three years?

4. Can either of the heirs, or the executor, or the guardian of the minor children raise legal objections against the loaning of $10,000 to B, as per codicil, and in what manner must they do so to make it effective?

5. If B accepts the loan from the estate must he pay, in case of profits accruing in the business, one-half of these profits to the estate, as per business contract, or is the contract between him and A a dead letter with the moment of A's death?

A. The death of A dissolves the partnership. B can claim the good will of the business, but must settle it up without charge, and pay all dues over to A's estate. B can also claim. the use of the $10,000, for the period named, and must pay for it the 10 per cent. only, whether he makes any profit or not from it. The two children of age can only claim each one-fifth of the amount realized, and in the hands of the executors. The $10,000 will belong to the estate, but will not fall in for dividend until the end of three years, and all the children will share alike interest in it. If B loses it and never pays it, the children will all share alike in the loss.

69. A and B have been in partnership for years without any written articles of agreement with only a verbal understanding, the capital

of each to continue in the firm business without interest, and the profits or losses of such business to be divided according to such verbal understanding, &c. Eventually A dies, thereby leaving B as sole sur viving partner, and the latter naturally assumes the settlement of the firm's business. Another firm, C & D, being indebted to the firm A & B, dissolve partnership after the death of A, without having discharged this indebtedness to the firm A & B, with D continuing as successor to C & D. By public notification D settles the firm's (C & D's) business, tendering his (D's) own individual notes, with short time to run, to the order of B. Does B by accepting such individual notes (from D made to the order of B) thereby release the original claims. of the firm A & B against the firm of C & D, without any such implied intention or understanding to this effect, certainly on the part of B, until the notes are paid? Also, does B, by reason of having accepted such notes from D, assume any new responsibility, or become legally bound individually accountable to the estate of A for the original claims of A & B against C & D in the case of non-payment of such notes? B has acted in good faith and according to his best judgment as the surviving partner in settling the business of A & B, and has endeavored to account for every cent belonging to the estate of A, as fast as collected from the creditors of A & B.

A. If, as we infer from the above statement, D's individual obligation was not accepted distinctly as payment of the firm to A & B, it appears to us, in the event of the non-payment of the note, to leave the original note subsisting, and still collectible to the assets of C & D, unless in the meantime is has been barred by the statute of limitations. In this latter case only, therefore, or perhaps also, if assets existed out of which the debt might have been collected at the time the note of D was accepted, and there are now none out of which it may be made, can any question of B's individual liability arise. How it should be answered may depend on the facts not stated above; but if the transaction was, under the circumstances, a prudent one, and apparently for the benefit of A's estate, we do not believe that any personal liability will fall on B.

70. In case of one of two partners surviving and wishing to pur chase the business, how many times, and in how many papers must the announcement be advertised?

Can the old firm name be used by the surviving partner, after pur chase of the business, provided it has been used ten years previously, although the firm has no foreign connections?

A. The surviving partner has the right to continue the busiAs to the partnership property it must be disposed of for

ness.

the benefit of the surviving partner and the estate of the deceased. If the survivor wishes to buy out the interest of the latter, he can make an arrangement with the executor or administrator to this effect, as they may agree.

The old name may be continued by the laws of this State, after its use here five years, even without any foreign interest or connections, provided the formalities of the law as to filling the certificates and publishing the same are complied with; without such compliance the use of the firm's name by one partner renders him liable to a penalty.

71. What is the law governing copartnerships where one of the partners dies, the surviving one only having about an eighth interest in the capital and a quarter in the general business? Can the heirs of the defunct partner step in and take all or any control of the business at once? Is there a law defining the time the business can be carried on without allowing the heirs any say in the premises?

A. The death of the partner without any provisions for it in the copartnership agreement dissolves the firm. The heirs in that case have nothing to do with carrying on the business, which belongs to the surviving partner, if he so elects; but he cannot carry it on with the funds belonging to the estate. must use his own name, or new capital, for any new business.

PATENTS AND COPYRIGHT.

Hc

1. Can an article that has been patented in the United States be manufactured in England or France and imported in this country with out infringing upon the right?

A. A patent here will not prevent the manufacture and use of the articles abroad, but such foreign goods cannot be sold here. Nor can a patent be obtained for an article abroad by an American inventor who has first made and sold it under a patent in the United States.

2. I have the assignment of a patent to secure the payment of a note; has the assignment to be recorded to make it legal?

A. The assignment will be good against the patentee; but section 4,898 Rev. Stat. provides that "an assignment, grant, or conveyance shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for a valuable consideration, without notice, unless it

is recorded in the Patent Office within three months from the date thereof."

3. My brother-in-law in England wishes me to copyright a book he has written. Will you be kind enough to give me the needed information as how I shall proceed?

A. Unless the author is a citizen of the United States, or a resident of this country, he cannot protect his work here by copyrighting it, as the law now stands.

4. Will you be kind enough to state whether a party who manufactures a certain article and finds afterward that the article is patented, is liable to any penalty if not notified by the patentee?

A. A second inventor has no right to manufacture, if the prior invention has been patented, and is liable to a penalty for infringing the patent.

5. The Government issued letters patent to a certain party, and some months later issued duplicate letters (at least substantially such) to another party for the same article, on the ground of priority of invention. This led to litigation between the parties, or their assignees, and the matter is still in court. Both parties or their assignees are manufacturing the article in question. Can dealers in the article manufactured by the losing party be held liable for damages by the party winning the suit? Can the losing party or his assigns be held for damages by the winner of the suit, or only estopped from manufacturing?

A. The question here raised does not appear to have received an authoritative answer without adjudication; but proceeding upon general principles it is safe to say that it would be highly inequitable to impose damages upon dealers in the case suggested, at all events until after notice that the patent is in dispute. After such notice we should consider it the part of prudence to suspend dealings until the termination of the contest. Whether or no the losing party could be cast in damages would probably depend upon his good faith in obtaining the patent; if so obtained in conscious fraud of another's rights, it appears to us likely that damages might be awarded.

6. Having had a disputo with a friend as to whether one may manufacture for his own use (though not for sale) a patented article, I contending that one had that right, he that they had not, we have decided to leave it to you as an authority.

A. It is just as much an infringement of a patent to make the tling patented for his own use as to make it for sale. The use of a patented article might be, as with a screw machine, the production of screws for sale; of course this would aggravate the damages; but the result would be the same as if it was a washing machine to use in one's own kitchen, or a mower to cut one's own grain. He must get the right before he can make or use the machine.

7. Are patent rights subject to seizure the same as personal property?

A. Patent rights are personal property, and are not exempted from execution any more than stocks or bonds.

8. A fire recently injured my machinery, and among it is a machine for which a patent is held. Can I rebuild this machine without again paying the royalty? A large portion of the machine on which the patent is held is not injured, and will be used again in rebuilding.

A. The owner of a patented machine has the right to repair, but not to reconstruct. The right to make it sometimes conveyed by the license to use, but if that right has not been granted there is none to rebuild. (Wilson vs. Simpson, 9 How., 123.) It will be seen that the answer to the above question depends upon the extent of the work to be done to the machine.

9. A owns a patent on an article used largely by B and all his competitors in manufacturing a certain class of goods. Said patent has been running for some years and has been used by nearly all without paying royalty. Can A now sue B for damages and also oblige. him to pay a royalty in future, and let his competitors go on as before, thus obliging B to stop making the article, or is he obliged to treat all alike? The infringement is so palpable that difficulty of detection would be no reasonable excuse.

A. In permitting general use of his patent without action to prevent it, the patentee indicates an intention to abandon it, or, in the language of Judge Story, affords "a very strong presumption of such an actual abandonment or surrender," (Wyeth vs. Stone, 1 Story's Rep., 273.) Probably, in the case above presented, the patentee could not recover damages; but as to his right to prevent the future use of his invention without payment of

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »