918

FEDERAL REPORTER,

vol. 56.

consideration. I do not think that a case for an injunction haa been made out. Decree that the Buit be dismissed, with costa.

A"ORIANCE, PLATT & CO. v. McCORMICK HARVESTING MACH. 00. et al. (Circuit Court ot Appeals, Seventh Circuit. May 25, 1893.) No. 108.
1.

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT SUIT-PARTIES.

A licensee may prosecute in his own name suit for infringement ot a patent where the defendant is the owner of the legal title to the patent. Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 205, cited.

2.

CONTRACT-CONSTRUCTION-AMBIGUITY.

It is only a latent ambiguity that may be explained by eVidence aliunde. Doubts apparent upon the face of an instrument must be resolved by the court, resorting, it necessary, to the rule that a grant expressed in doubttui words shall be construed most strongly against the grantor.

3.

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-LICENSE FOR SALE IN FOItEIGN CouN'rmEs.

In addition to the grant of an exclusive llcense to manufacture and sell in certain parts of the United States, a license contained the following clause: "And, so far as we can control the same, the exclusive right to build harvesters and binders under the rights herein granted. tor sale In Europe, Australia, and South America." Held that. fairly and reasonably construed, this language conferred upon the licensee an exclusive right to manufacture within the United States tor sale in the toreign countries named, and hence that an injunction should issue against the partles manufacturing in the United States outside the territorial limits covered by the license to restrain them from manufacturing for such foreign trade.

4.

INJUNCTIONS ORDERED.

In this case the court finds that complainant is entitled to a preliminary injunction to restrain infringement of 16 patents issued to James R. Severance for improvements in harvesters and binders. 55 Fed. Rep. 288. affirmed.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of minnis. In Equity. Bill by Adriance, Platt & Co. against the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company and Cyrus H. McCormick for infringement of certain patents. A t.emporary injunction granted. Defendant.s appeal. Affirmed. Robert H. Parkinson, for appellants. Banning & Banning & Payson, for appellee. Before JENKINS, Circuit J.udge, and BAKER and BUNN, Dis· trict Judges.

the reasons stated in the opinion of the court below, reported in
55 Fed. Uep. 288.

PER CURIAM.

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed for

WETZEJ, V. MI",i'iESOTA TRANSFER RY. CO.

919

WETZEL <:'t aI. v. MINNESOTA. TRANSFER RY. CO. et at (Circuit Comt, D. MillnesCJta, Third Division. A.ugust 24, 1893.)
EQUITY-LACHES -

A soldier's widow I'(,eeivC'd from the United Stiltes a land warrant, as provided by Act Feb. 11, 1847, § 9, (fl Stat. ]23,) and was thereaftl'r duly appointed gUlll'ditm of her minor children, except one daughter, \\'110 was a married woman; and in that capacity and for herself, she attempted to a'lsign such land warrant, being joined therein by the said married daughter, but she din not obtain any order of court, authorizing such as· signment as was hy law required. The consideration of the assignment. was $100, to which sum she was entitled, hy the terms of the act, instead of the waiTant. The located the warrant, duly obtained a patent, ami. the warl't,nt was dilly filen In 'Vashiuf{toll. '1'he land lnCrl'aSld in value to $1,000,000, and improvements were placed thereon to t'he of $2,000,000. and more than 40 years elapsed from the date of the assignment. lftTrl, that a court of equity would not entertain a suit hy the assignor and her descendants to I-et aside the assignment as invalid, and to rl.'cover possession of the property, hut should qUiet respondents' title against such descendants. Felix v. Patrick, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 862, 145 F. S. 317, followed.

UNAUTHORIZED ASSIGNMENT OF MILITARY LAND WARRANT.

In Equity. Bill by Elizabeth Wetzel, Han-iet A. Van Zant, Emma F. Hergesheimer, Maggie L. Beckman, John Wesley Remsen, George W. Remsen, Mary J. Remsen, Clara B. Remsen, and Mabel Remsen against the Minnesota Transfer Railway Company and others to recover possession of certain lands, and to have certain muniments of respondents' title declared void. Decree for respondents. W. C. Mayne, Clapp, Bramhall & Taylor, and Lusk, Bunn &. Hadley, for complainants. Davis, Kellogg & Severance and C. H. Benedict, fo'l' defendants.
WILLIAMS, District Judge. This action concerns 160 acres of land, described in the complaint, situated in the corporate limits of the city of St. Paul, between that city and MInneapolis. Elizabeth Wetzel is alleged to be the widow of George W. Remsen, aud the other complainants are their surviving children and grandchHdren. The bill states that George W. Remsen became, in his lifetime, entitled to a land warrant, as a soldier in the United States army, under the act of congress approved February 11, 1847. The United States duly issued a land warrant for l(iO acres of land, in the name of Elizabeth Remsen, willow, Harriet A. Bemsen, :Mary Ann Remsen, John Wesley Remsen, Elizabeth Remsen, and George W. Remsen, chHdren and heirs at law of the said George, which warrant entitled them, under section 9 of said act, to locate it on aUJ quarter section of government land subject to private entry. That, when the warrant was issued and assigned, all the comnlaiuants but Elizabeth Remsen were under 14 years of age, except Harriet A., who was 17. 'l.'hat on or about October 6, 1848, the widow was duly appointed the guardian of the persons and estates of all the children except Harriet A, by the orphans' court of the city