JOHN WOODS & SONS
v.
CARL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
John Woods & Sons sought to enforce a promissory note for the sale of a patented machine and patent rights in Arkansas, but the note did not comply with an Arkansas statute requiring such notes to be executed on printed forms showing on their face that they were given for patented goods. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' judgment for the defendant, holding that Arkansas's statute requiring specific form and disclosure requirements for notes given in sale of patent rights was valid and enforceable as a defense to collection.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Peckham delivered the opinion of the court.
This action was brought in the proper court of the State of Arkansas by the plaintiffs in error to recover the amount of a promissory note, which was given by the defendant in error on the sale to him of a patented machine and of the right to the-patent in the State of Arkansas. Before the maturity of the note it was indorsed by the payee and transferred to plaintiffs in error. The note was not executed as provided for by the statute of that State relating to the sale of rights under a patent. Act of April 23, 1891, Kirby’s Dig., sec. 513. The section reads as follows:
“Sec. 513. Any vendor of any patented machine, implement, substance, or instrument of any kind or character whatsoever, when the said-vendor of the same effects the sale of the same to any citizen of this State on a credit, and takes any character of negotiable instrument, in payment of the same, the said negotiable instrument shall be executed on a printed form, and show upon its face that it was executed in consideration of a patented machine, implement,' substance or instrument, as the case may be, and no person shall be considered an innocent holder of the same, though he may have given value for the same before maturity, and the maker thereof may make defense to the collection of the same in the hands of any holder of said negotiable instrument; and all such notes not showing on their face for what they were given shall be absolutely void.”
The defendant set up the violation of the statute as a defense. The verdict was for the defendant, and the judgment entered thereon having been affirmed by the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs have brought the case here by writ of error. The sole question involved is the validity of the statute. The opinion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas is reported in 75 Arkansas, 328. See also Wyatt v. Wallace, 67 Arkansas, 575; State v. Cook, 107 Tennessee, 499. This case is governed by the immediately preceding one, although the statute of Arkansas renders the note void if given for a patent right if the note does not show on its face for what it was given. The difference is not so material as to call for a different decision. The judgment is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Day dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carbice Corp. of Am. v. Am. Patents Dev. Corp., 283 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1931)…633, affirmed, 50 Fed. 677. Nor does the grant of a "United States patent exempt the patented product from limitations imposed by state police statutes. Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U. S. 501; Allen v. Riley, 203 U. S. 347; John Woods & Sons v. Carl, 203 U. S. 358; Ozan Lumber Co. v. Union County National Bank, 207 U. S. 251. Compare Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344, 347. See note 1, supra. Nor can a patent be made the basis of an unconscionable contract. Pope Mfg. Co. v. Gormully, 144 U. S. 224. In such c…
-
Crenshaw v. State of Ark., 227 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1913)
-
Ozan Lumber Co. v. Union Cnty. Nat'l Bank of Liberty, 207 U.S. 251 (U.S. 1907)…e Peckham^ after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court. The validity of this very statute'of Arkansas (at least until Congress legislates upon the subject) has already been affirmed by this court, Woods & Sons v. Carl, 203 U. S. 358, and the validity of statutes of a somewhat similar nature has also been .affirmed in the case of Allen v. Riley, 203 U. S. 347, immediately preceding the case above cited. . ’ It is sought to avoid the authority of bur decision upon this Arkansas…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence