Melville Fuller

“ The controversy was in respect to the rescission of a contract for the exchange of an invention for a stock of merchandise. The decree rested on grounds broad enough to sustain it without reference to any federal question. Application for letters patent was pending when the contract was entered into, and letters patent were issued, so that Wade obtained a half interest therein, as provided. The state courts held, for the reasons given, that Wade got what he had bargained for, and was not deceived or misled in the premises. Under these circumstances, the writ of error cannot be maintained. ”

“ The application for letters patent was then pending, and, under an assignment of his interest in the invention by Ringo to Wade, a patent issued September 22, 1891, to Wade and Buckner, Ringo's co-owner.
The gravamen of the bill was that plaintiff was induced to enter into the contract by certain false and fraudulent representations by defendant as to the utility and value of the invention in question, and also that various matters and things were fraudulently omitted from the contract by the defendant. Any other grounds of complaint indicated are unimportant. ”

“ Hyatt, 125 U.S. 46, 8 Sup. Ct. 756, and cases cited; Machine Co. v. Skinner, 139 U.S. 293, 11 sup. Ct. 528; In re Ingalls, 139 U.S. 548, 11 Sup. Ct. 652; Marsh v. Nichols, Shepard & Co., 140 U.S. 344, 11 Sup. Ct. 798. ”