JEFFERSON V. THOMPSON 56/1925

stated oy hix the appeal should be allowed and +

ACMMIGH

ny

JEFFERSON _ ve oupsow

JUDGMENT HIGGINS Je Tho plaintiff here is a lady who is the purchaser and assignee of certain

patents;and she brings an action against the assignor for rqedasion of the

indenture of assignment,for repayment of the purchase moneys which she has already paid,for am injunction against further proceedings on the

promissory notes given,and for cancellation of the notes.' The learned

judge at the frial(liong Inmes: Ey granted the relief sought on the ground

® : of * innocent misrepresentation made by the vendor;and this is an appeal

from that decree. Tt appears that the husband of the plaintiff conducted the business

negotiations on her behalf;and it is alleged in the statement of claim, and not denied in the defence,and therefore to be treated as admitted, that the defendant represented to the hueband that the defendant was

" : ©

the original inventor of the said invention: ¢ The invention was of a cortain wire tie for bales. The trial judge takes the representation to mean that the defendant was the firgt inventor in point of time---as I ;- understand anywhere ;and accepting that interpretation ,His Honour finds"

th@srepresentation was untrue----untrue as to one Of the claims made in

the specification———but that the representation was made in good faith

and in entire innocence.

We shall astume,for the sake of argument,that the representation in —

galSeana pe keen ge ge gees oe oo pees this sense is shown to be falsejand that the falsehood of the representat

ion is established by a

ing that one of the claims made in the specif—

ication is too wide;but we mist not be understood as so deciding. We

i address our remarks to the meaning of the words used under the circum stances. But what the defendant meant to convey,and what the plaintiff or her husband understood him to ctmvey ,by the words, would depend mich on