
    James A. Saxton v. Cornelius Aultman et al.
    Under the law of congress for retarding assignments of patent rights — Laws of 1836, chapter 351, seo. 11 — a prior unrecorded assignment, is good against subsequent assignees without valuable consideration.
    Petition in error. Reserved in the district court of Stark county.
    
      Ball and Butter being joint owners of a patent, Butter assigned his interest therein, for the territory of the State of ■Ohio, to Ball; and Ball, before the expiration of three months, -the time fixed by the law of congress for recording assignments, conveyed to Aultman & Co. After the expiration of the three months, Saxton, without any notice of either of said conveyances, received from Butter an assignment of all of Butter’s “ interest” in said patent, without any specification as to the nature or extent of that interest. The assignments '•from Butter to Ball, and from him to Aultman & Co., were not recorded till long after the conveyance to Saxton.
    Aultman & Co. brought an action in the common pleas against Ball to recover a stipulated price for the use of the patent in Ohio, by Ball, agreeably to a contract between them. Ball answered that Saxton owned half the patent, and was, therefore, a necessary party, entitled to half the amount due. Saxton was made a party defendant, and in his answer asserted his claim as such joint owner, under the conveyance to him from Butter.
    The case was submitted to the court upon an agreed statement of facts. But neither the agreed statement, the comi*eyance to Saxton, nor the answer of Saxton shows or, sets up any valuable consideration paid by Saxton to Butter for the conveyance.
    The common pleas gave judgment against the right of Saxton, and he prosecutes this petition in error to reverse the judgment.
    --, for plaintiff in error.
    
      JBelden &¡ Frease, for defendants in error.
   Welch, J.

Under the law of congress for recording assignments of patent rights — chap. 357, sec. 11, Laws of 1836 — it has been uniformly held by the courts that a prior unrecorded assignment is good against subsequent assignees without valuable consideration. We feel bound by these decisions, and we think it necessary only to apply them to this case fully to dispose of it.

Neither the deed of assignment to Saxton, the agreed statement of facts, nor the answer of Saxton, shows or alleges any valuable consideration paid by him. Indeed it is doubtful whether the language of the assignment can be made to include the territory of Ohio at all. Much less can it be made to import a consideration paid for that territory.

It is, therefore, useless to consider the other questions raised and argued in the case — the status of Saxton in the suit, the necessity of recording such an assignment as the one made to Ball, etc. — because, in any form of action, and under any construction of the language of these assignments, it is obvious that Saxton must fail, unless he shows that he paid a valuable consideration. This he has utterly failed to make appear in the present case.

Judgment affirmed.

Brinkerhoff, C.J., and Scott, and White, JJ., concurred. Day, J., having been of counsel, did not sit in the case.  