UNITED STATES SIAMHlta OO. ». JBWBTT. Stf �pany, as the assignee of imy whole right and title thereto, ior the sole use and behoof of tie said the Hoath & Smith Man- ufacturing Company, and their legal representatives." On the twenty-sevehth of May, 1872, Heath executed and deliv- ■ered to one James P. Decker an assignment, which was recorde^ in the patent-office June 1, 1872. It recites the issuing of the patent, the execution by Heath of the said paper of July 20, 1871, and its receiving; alleges ttiat it was obtained from him "by false representations, and without any consideration," and declares it void; and then conveys to Declcer "all the right, title, and interest which I hate in the said invention as seeured tb me by said letters patent; the same to be heldand enjoyed by the said James P. Decker for hie own use and behoof;' and'ioi' the use arld behoof of his legal representatives, to the full end of the term for which eaid letters patent ar^egranted, as fully and entirely as the «ame would have beehheld and enjoyed by me if this aasign- tnent and sale had not been'-made." �'The defendant conteiids that the language of the paperof July 20, 1871, aoee ndt (Sbuvey'the-legal title to the patent, but onlyseeks'to take advaiitage of the provision 'ofi section 33 of the act of July 8,' 1^870,' (18 "D. S. St. at Large, '502,) which provides for the issuing of patents to the assignee of the inventer, the assignment being first entered of record in ihe patent office; that it does not convey the right to the invention itself, but only thei right to have the patent issued to the company on first recording the assignment ; that, as the company allowed the patent to issue tO Heath, its title to the patent was only an equitable title, and that, as Decker has the legal title, he is a necessary party to the bill. The answer does not set up that Decker should be added as a party, but it avers only that the plaintiff does not own the patent, and has no right to bring this suit, and that the patent is owned and held by Decker. �The only difference between this case and that of Sayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477, is that, in that case, the assignment by Fitzgerald, the inventer, was recorded in the patent-office be- fore the patent was issued. But the patent was issued to ��� �
