Summary

Stanley Matthews Topliff v. Topliff (122 U.S. 121…

The parties mutually agree that they will share the expense of maintaining the right of the patent against infringements and other patents in the following proportion: The first party to pay one-third, and the second party to pay two-thirds. It is also further agreed that any improvement made on these articles by either party shall be for the mutual benefit of the parties.
Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews Topliff v. Topliff (122 U.S. 121…

John A. Topliff states, as a witness in the case, that his improvement consisted 'in placing a filling of wood in the tubes of the bow-sockets to strengthen the same, and also in extending the strip of steel, which is inserted in the wood filling, far enough down to enable it to be welded or otherwise fastened to the slat-iron.' After the issue of this patent, the business was continued by the parties as before, the carriage bows and bow-sockets being made with all the improvements added
Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews Topliff v. Topliff (122 U.S. 121…

If there were any doubt or ambiguity arising upon the words employed in the clause of the contract under consideration they would be effectually removed by this practical construction continuously put upon them by the conduct of the parties for so long a period.
'In cases where the language used by the parties to the contract is indefinite or ambiguous, and hence of doubtful construction, the practical interpretation of the parties themselves is entitled to great, if not controlling, influence. The interest of each generally leads him to a construction most favorable to himself
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature