BAIULTOM V. KIKaSBUfiT. e35 �them of April 29, 1868, "the right for the st'ate oï New York" was vested in Eussell, Eeese, and Strong & Woodbury, and then it conveys all the "right, title, and interest" of Eeese in the invention, as secured to him by the patent, for, to, and in the state of New York. The conveyanee of December 10, 1869, from Strong & Woodbury to the defendants, recitea that by virtue of assignment from Hamilton, of August 27, 1866, "the right for the state of New York" was vested in Lombard & Thompson; and that by virtue of the assignment from them of April 29, 1868, "the right for the state of New York" was vested in Eussell, Eeese, Strong & Woodbury ; and that by virtue of the assignment from Eeese, of July 16, 1868, "ail his right, title, and interest in and to said right for the state of New York" was vested in Eussell, Strong & Woodbury ; and then it conveys all "our right, title, and inter- est therein, as secured by the letters patent and assignment before mentioned, which consista of the right, title, and inter- est" of Eussell, Strong & Woodbury "to the right for the whole state of New York, except one-half interest held by Eobert P. Eussell and the counties of Cayuga and Franklin, previously assigned to John Busley and Sidney A. Paddock, respectively." �The conveyanee of April 29, 1868, from LoMbard & Thompson, conveys only their "right, title, and interest" in the invention. The conveyanee from Eeese conveys only his "right, title, and iuterest" in the invention. The conveyanee from Strong & Woodbury conveys only their "right, title, and interest." No recitals in those instruments caused them to operate to convey to the defendants anything more than the right, title, and interest of Lombard & Thompson, whatever it was, on the twenty-ninth of April, 1868. It is true that the conveyanee of April 29, 1868, and the subsequent convey- ances, recite that what was vested in Lombard & Thompson, by the assignment to them, was "the right for the state of New York." But Milton A. Hamilton wasno party to those conveyances. He did not deal witîi any oiie but Lombard & Thompson. Even if theybe regarded as acting as "his agents in subsequently conveying, they conveyed only their "right. ����
