Dorr v. Munsell

debt" oan'‘tend! caunotdepfieadnR derat?onfo“hat to give1the bond-representation of. the valué of a thing, wbich afterwards turn* no Take0-136 as SraHoneoCftiie jbo^d was a transfer of-a patent right to which the plaintiff was not entitled as the original inventor. Fraud may be given in evidence under ést factum, only where it relatesto the execution of the instrument.

THIS was an action of debt on a bond in the penalty of 400 dollars, dated the 21st ’September, 1810. ■ The defendant craved oyer, arid set forth the condition of the bond, which was for the payment of three sums, each of 66 dollars and 67 cents, in one, two, and three years, from the date; and then pleaded. 1. Non ^ , ’ , • ? est factum* 2. lhat the bond was fraudulently obtained by 47 4 , # > « Pontiff, by represehting-hirnself to be the original inventor and patentee of an improvement in a- machine for shearing cloth, containing a new mode' and principle of drawing and moving the cloth in the machine while in the operation of being sheared; and that the same had not been invented by, or patented to, any other person previous to the date of the' letters patent granted to the plaintiff by the president of the United States. The defendant then averred that the said inode of drawing cloth, while in the operation of being sheared, was patented on the 22d November, 1805, to one Kellogg, and to one Samuel G. Dorr, on the 29th October, 1792; and that the defendant was not the original inventor and patentee thereof. That the defendant, in confidence of the representations of the plaintiff, made the bond in the declaration mentioned, and received therefor, from the plaintiff, a conveyance of his right, to make and use the said machine for 14 years, in the county of Cayuga, and in the township of Marcellus, in the county of Onondaga, excepting the town of Aurelius, in the county of Cayuga. 3. Generally, that the bond was obtained by fraud. To the second plea the plaintiff demurred, and assigned special causes of demurrer, which it is unnecessary to state, as the opinion of the court was founded on the insufficiency of the plea in substance; and, to.the third pleaf.he replied tendering an issue thereon. The cause was submitted to the court, without argument.