« EelmineJätka »
This volume deals with the Cases comprised in the period
The succeeding volumes of this series will deal with the periods covered by
ASPINALL'S MARITIME CASES.
CABABE & ELLIS.
MORRELL'S BANKRUPTCY CASES.
MANSON'S BANKRUPTCY & COMPANY CASES.
MEGONE'S COMPANY CASES.
TIMES LAW REPORTS.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPORTS.
GORDON'S WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CASES.
REPORTS OF PATENT, Etc., CASES.
EASTERN PRESS. LTD., READING & LONDON.
Of the Inner Temple and the Midland Circuit, Barrister-at-Law
THE REPORTS & DIGEST SYNDICATE, LTD.,
14, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR.
STEVENS & SONS, LTD.
SWEET & MAXWELL, LTD.
CANADA LAW BOOK CO., LTD.
It has been decided to issue this series of Reports in order to furnish a uniform collection of the whole case law of the period from 1866 to the present time, the earlier case law down to that date having already been consolidated in the English Reports and Revised Reports.
Much time and thought have been expended towards making this series as perfect and practically useful to the profession as possible. The system of annotation adopted in the above-named Reports has again been employed, in an extended form, as its advantages are widely recognised by those to whom it is familiar. These annotations constitute a condensed life-history of each decision, showing its effect on subsequent cases, and the effect adverse or otherwise of those cases on its own present validity.
These annotations will be kept up-to-date by Annual Cumulative Supplements.
Where it has not been found desirable to print a case in full, a short summary has been given to ensure completeness.
Perhaps the most valuable feature connected with this series will be found in the new "Standard Law Classification" by which the Reports and Digest, by a system of cross-references, are made to interlock. The advantages of this, however, will not be fully realised until the new "Standard Annotated Digest of English Case Law" down to 1917 is published.
All the Cases in this volume are reported by Barristers-at-Law.
The references at the beginning of the paragraphs of the headnotes are to the titles in the new Standard Annotated Digest of English Case Law.
 E. R. A.
CRANWORTH, L.C., July 13, 14, Nov. 4, 1865.
MATHERS v. GREEN.
35 L. J. Ch. 1; L. R. 1 Ch. 29; 13 L. T. 420; 14 W. R. 17:
Approved, Steers v. Rogers,  E. R. A.; 62 L. J. Ch. 671;  A.C. 232; 68 L. T. 726 (H.L.). Adopted, Heyl-Dia v. Edmunds,  E. R. A.; 81 L. T. 579; 48 W. R. 167 (Ch. D.).
Patent-Rights of Co-Patentees-Use of Patent-Account of ProfitsInconsistent Relief.
PATENT. The inability of one of several joint-patentees profitably to use the invention without the consent of his co-patentees, as owners of a prior patent, does not entitle him to share with his co-patentees in the profits made by them from the use of the patent, there being no principle of law, in the absence of contract, to prevent any person not prohibited by statute from using any invention whatever, and no implied contract, where several persons jointly obtain letters patent, that no one of them shall use the invention without the consent of the others, or that he shall use it for their joint benefit.
The decision of the Master of the Rolls, 34 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 298, reversed.
Plaintiff cannot obtain relief inconsistent with the case made by the bill.
This was an appeal from a decision of the Master of the Rolls, reported 34 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 298.
The defendants, Thomas Green and his son Willoughby Green, were manufacturing engineers, carrying on business together in partnership at Leeds, and having also a branch establishment in London, at No. 2, Victoria Street, Holborn. In 1859 Willoughby Green obtained a patent for improvements in mowing-machines, and in 1861 two other patents for further improvements were taken out in the joint names of the defendants and the plaintiff, who was in their employ at the Leeds works; and in August, 1862, the defendants and the plaintiff jointly granted a licence to Messrs. Cookey & Co., of Glasgow, to use one of the joint patents at certain royalties.
On the 25th of March, 1862, the plaintiff left the Leeds works and went E. R. A. —VOL. 1.