FAULKS W. KAMP. i 901 �ît tô sell. Thîs suit is bettpeen these parties; and involves their rights alone, and not the rights of the public; The deter- mination of itfae validity of the patent in this suit will only determine its validity between them, and not affect its validity as to others not parties. The defendants in possession and enjoyment of that exclusive right assumed to sell and trans- fer it. After that, in justice, they ought not to be heard to say that they had it not and did not sell it, and to be allowed to detrOgate from their own grant by setting up that it did not pass. They may have deprived themselves of the right to practice it within the territory when otherwise; they would have retained the right in common with ail others ; but, if they did, that would not so affect the publie as to avoid their obligation. ■ They could exclude themselves in that way by contract, independently of the patent, and the contract would be upheld if it went no further than upholding this patent as against them in the territory in question would take them. It would be upon good consideration, reasonable, and only in partial restraint of trade. Pierce v, Woodward, 6 Pick. 206; Chitty on Cont. 576. The question as to the right of a vendor of a patent to deny its validity afterwards came up in Cham- bers V. Chrichley, 33 Beav. 374 That case was similar to this in important features. The parties had been partners in the manufacture oî stoves under a patent which they owned. The defendant sold his share in the partnership assets, includ- ing the patent, to the plaintiflfs, but afterwards continued the manufacture and the suit was brought for that infringe- ment. Upon that case Sir John Romilly, master of the rolls, in delivering judgment, said: "I do not intend to express my opinion as to the validity of Wright's patent. I will assume, for the purposes of my judgment, that it is wortli nothing at ail. But this is certain, that the defendant sold and assigned that patent to the plaintiffs as a valid one, and having done so he cannot derogate from his own grant. It does not lie in his mouth to say that the patent is not good." And an injunction and an account were decreed. It is argued for the defendants that as the conveyances were of the right, title, and interest of the grantors, the warranty would only ����
