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 the context in the conversation in which they were used. Unfortunately, neither the husband nor the defendant has given evdidence of the conver- [st sation or the circumstances(the husband,we are informed,was ill_at the trial)j;and we have to rely Wholly on the technical admission in the defendant has been found innocent of any fraud,what should be taken as. t pleadings. Taking these words as they stand,and bearing in mind that the } : i : i the true meaning in an honest man's mouth ? \ There is one meaning given ih the Oxford dictionary for "original" ) that might well fit the cases4(b)made composed or done by the person |: + himself(not imitated from another) :first hand" jas when Dryden said "TIT i \ i the: husband,who met be presumed to know the risks to which patents are ( have added some original papers of my ows The defendant waa speaking to natn . subject on such points as noveltyj;and in order to reassure the husband to some extent as to such risks,the defendant may have merely meant, " .Well,at any rate,this invention was not derived by me from someone else; it was the fruit of my own brains;I worked it out myself;I ant inventor yp at first hanajnot a aecond hand.It was not cribbed by me" Such a meaning is quite consistent with the words " the original inventor™ the original inventor of the invention described in the letters patent as distinguished from the first man to give it to the public. This meaning gains in probability from the pldantiff's own statement in cross i examination : —— b " | Mr Jefferson came out on the 19th and explained tt to me. It was a very simple invention. I asked him was it his own inyentjon; and he | i said yes,he had invented it foe the plaintiff says that this { statement was what weighed with her in deciding to put her money into the patentjand yet it cannot mean that the defendant asserted that no one els had previously seized the same idea' It was "his om not derived.' The recital in the deed of assignment seems to us,so far as it goes, : to confirm this meaning----- 'Whereas the assignor claims to be the actual true and first and original inventor of a certain invention" ete j t h . : , True and first inventor, are the words used in the statute of James: iH (21 Jae Lo 3),and it refers to the person who firet discloses the w ony = invention to the public; actual inventiem does not include a person importing an invention from abroad(Patenth# Act 8.4)380 that the meaning left available for "original inventor" is that the invention sprang é from himself in person----as Athona from tho head of Zeus. pete I may add that if,as contended,the words conveyed the moaning [ 4 | that the defendant was the first in point of timejany-whore,who thought ,it is hard to see that the statement could be anything but fraudulent. How could the defendant Imow such a fact ? If he did not know it,the statement mst have been made. in reckless disregard af truth. Yet fraud admittedly, is out of the question; and it is our duty,even if the two meanings of the words were equally i possible,to accept that meaning which would be innocent. 7 We are all of opinion that on this ground,----the ground of morits of the case----the appeal must be allowed,' It mst be far more i satisfactory for an honest man to feel that he succeeds on the merits, rather than succeeds on the technical ground(if applicable)that the plaintiff is barred from the remedy of réolesion by reason of the « " ¥ *] transaction having passed into the. realm of conveyance.W@ quite concur with the learned judge(Harvey J.)who heard the motion for injunction, that the law on this subject is not satisfactorily settledjand we are glad that it is not necessary for us,in the present state of the authorities,to decide the question. Speaking for myself,yonly,I may add that I am not satisfied that the indenture was meant to be the Pore completion of the agreement' It seems rather like a mere formal é substitute for the short agreement;and this would explain the dating of the indenture back some days to the 19th of June,the date of the agree— mur , and also would explain the fact that the statement of claim claims. recission of the indenture only,not of the agreement. oe We "hink that the appeal should be allowed with costs and that the suit should be dismissed 'with costa; costs to be taxed and paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. Remit to the Supreme Court to do what is proper in pursuance of this opinion,