1825. Jan. 18th. act of Parlia BLOXAM and Another, assignees of HENRY and SEALY If by a private ACTION for the infringement of patents, by the defendant's causing to be made a machine for the making of paper. ment a privi. lege of the sole making of a newly-invented machine is vested in certain persons, with a proviso that it shall be forfeited in case it shall become representatives, ministrators only as the sin gle persons they represent):" Held, The first count of the declaration stated, that before the bankruptcy, to wit, on the 20th of April 1801, his Majesty, by his letters patent (of which profert was made) reciting that John Gamble was in possession of a machine for making paper in single sheets, without joinings, from one to twelve feet wide, and from one to forty-five feet long, the method of making which machine had been communicated to him by a certain foreigner, and that the same would be of great utility, granted to John Gamble the exclusive sale of the machine for fourteen years. then stated the terms of the patent, and proceeded to aver, that, in pursuance of the patent, John Gamble enrolled the specification within six calendar months. It then proceeded to state another patent granted to John It that if one of the persons becomes bankrupt, the right passes to his assignees; and that though there are more than five creditors, yet the assignees do not hold it in trust for 16 more than five persons, otherwise than by devise or succession," within the meaning of the act. It being objected, that a specification, enrolled pursuant to a patent for an invention, contained French terms:-Held, that an inventor of a machine is not tied down to make such a specification, as, by words only, would enable a skilful mechanic to make the machine, but he is allowed to call in aid the drawings that he may annex to the specification; and if by a comparison of the words and the drawings, the one will explain the other sufficiently to enable a skilful mechanic to perform the work, such a specification is sufficient. You cannot ask a witness what the opposite party has said as to the contents of deeds executed by him, without such party has had notice to produce such deeds. If a servant, while in the employ of his master, makes an invention, that invention belongs to the servant and not to the master: but, semble, that if the master employs a skilful person for the express purpose of inventing, that the inventions made by him will so much belong to the master, as to enable him to take out a patent for them. If a patent be taken out by a British subject, on a secret trust, to hold it for the benefit of the real inventor, the patent stating that the patentee has obtained the invention from a certain foreigner; whether, if such inventor, for whom it is held, be an alien enemy at the time, that will annul the patent, without its being necessary to sue out a scire facias for its repeal.— Quære. Gamble on the 7th of June, 1803, (of which profert was The second count charged the defendant with causing a 1825. BLOXAM & Another v. ELSEE. 1825. BLOXAM & Another บ. ELSEE. 66 machine for the making of paper to be made in imitation of the said improved machine. The third count was similar, but charged the defendant's machine to be "in part imitation of the invention." The fourth count charged it to be "in imitation." The fifth count charged it to be on the same principle and greatly resembling.”—The sixth count charged it to be "greatly resembling."_The seventh and five following counts were similar to the preceding six, except that they stated the plaintiffs' right to be derived from the act of Parliament and the assignment from Gamble to the bankrupts, and omitted to refer to the patents. The thirteenth count charged the defendant with the "using a machine for making paper in imitation of the improved machine." The fourteenth count was for "using a machine in part imitation, and greatly resembling," &c. The fifteenth count was for using a machine "in imitation and greatly resembling," &c. Plea_ General issue. On the part of the plaintiffs, the two patents were produced; one dated 20th April, 1801, and the other 7th June, 1803, and the specifications thereon duly enrolled; and a private act of Parliament (which was to be deemed a public act) of 47 Geo. 3, Sess. 2, c. 131, which recited the different patents and specifications, and the assignments of the patents, and that Gamble and the bankrupts had been put to great expense, and had made further improvements; and proceeded to enact, (§ 1), that Messrs. Foudrinier and Gamble, and their assigns, should, for fifteen years from thenceforth, make and use the improved machine, and that no other person should "make, use, or vend the said improved machine, nor in any wise counterfeit, imitate, or resemble the same, without the licence of the said H. and S. Foudrinier and John Gamble," or their executors, administrators, or assigns, in writing, under their hands and seals, first had and obtained, under the penalties that can be inflicted for contempt of this act, and further to be answerable in damages to Henry and Sealy Foudrinier and John Gamble, their executors, &c. The act then proceeds to fix rates of charge at which licences shall be granted; and by § 5 it is enacted, that they, or one of them, shall, within six calendar months, enrol specifications of the present improved state of the machine in the Chanceries of England, Scotland, and Ireland, otherwise the advantages of the act to cease; and the party or parties executing the specification, may make use of such words, figures, delineations, and explanations, as are proper for well describing the invention, although they are not the same words, &c. as are used in the former specifications. Section 6, enacts, that all objection to the specifications shall be of the like force and effect as they would have been if this act had not passed, "and if also the specifications to be enrolled as required by this act had been in due time enrolled instead of the said former specifications respectively, except only as to the extension of the said privileges for the further term of years hereby granted." Section 7. Provided always, that if at any time during the term the said Henry Foudrinier, Sealy Foudrinier, and John Gamble, or any person who shall have or claim any right, title, or interest, in law or equity, in the said privilege, shall make any transfer or assignment of the privilege, or any shares of the benefits or profits, or shall declare any trusts to or for any number of persons exceeding the number of five, or if they shall open books for public subscriptions, or presume to act as a corporate body, or do any thing contrary to the statute 6 Geo. 1, c. 18, (commonly called the Bubble Act); "or in case the said power, privilege, or authority shall at any time become vested in, or in trust for, more than five persons or their representatives, at any one time, otherwise than by devise or succession, (reckoning executors and administrators as and for the single persons they represent, as to such interest as they are or shall be entitled to in right of such their testator or intestate,) that then, and in every of the said cases, all liberties and advantages whatsoever, 1825. BLOXAM & Another v. ELSEE. 1825. BLOXAM & Another v. ELSEE. hereby vested in the said Henry Foudrinier, Sealy Foudrinier, and John Gamble, their executors, administrators, and assigns, shall utterly cease, determine, and become void, any thing herein before contained to the contrary notwithstanding." The specifications under this act were read. The formal proofs of the bankruptcy and of the plaintiffs' title being given, and it being also proved that there were more than twenty creditors of the estate of the bankrupts Scarlett objected, that by the assignees having the privilege in question assigned to them in trust for more than five persons, the whole thing was at an end, as by the 6th section of the act above cited, if the privilege became vested in, or in trust for, more than five persons, otherwise than by devise or succession," the whole privilege was to be at an end. Now the property had become vested in the assignees in trust for more than twenty creditors; and this being a private act of Parliament, which is to be considered only in the light of a conveyance, the parties must take it with all its imperfections; and the only two cases in which the Legislature have allowed it to be held by or for more than five persons are pointed out, and this is not either of them; and unless the words "otherwise than by devise or succession" are to be considered as surplusage, the construction contended for must prevail. Besides, if the assignees had the right, they cannot carry on trade, their trust being to make a dividend of the bankrupt's estate and could it be contended, that if there were one hundred creditors, each might by his own authority grant licences to paper-makers to use these machines? ABBOTT, C. J.-The creditors could not do so, but the assignees might. Brougham and Alderson, on the same side, cited the |