Opinion of the Court.

of the money loaned, or which the city had received upon the issue of the bonds, and used in the construction of its public works. The question of their right to recover on the equitable .consideration came before this court in Litchfield v. Ballou, 114 U. S. 190, and it was held that a provision in a state constitution that a municipal corporation shall not become indebted in any manner, or for any purpose, to an amount exceeding five per cent of its taxable property therein, forbids implied as well as express liability for the amount or amounts received on bonds issued contrary to such provision, and that a court of equity could not afford relief in such a case either on an express or implied obligation; that the transaction being invalid at law, was equally invalid in equity. This conclusion was reached after a full review of the authorities on the question, and the court denied the relief sought.

In Etna Life Insurance Co. v. Middleport, 124 U. S. 534, the town of Middleport made an appropriation to a railroad company, to be raised by tax on the property of the town, and bonds of the town for a sum large enough to include interest and discount for which they could be sold and delivered were issued to the railroad company, by whom they were put in circulation. These bonds were declared void, and the insurance company, as a purchaser and holder, for value and without notice, of a portion thereof, sought by a proceeding in equity to be subrogated to the right of the railroad company to enforce payment of the amount of the appropriation voted by the town; but it was held that the purchase of these bonds by the holder was no payment of the appropriation voted by the town, and that the holder was not entitled to claim the benefit of such appropriation; nor that the advantages conferred by the railroad company upon the town inured to the benefit of the holder, or constituted the basis of a consideration on which it could claim to be paid the sum appropriated for the railroad company. The proposition contended for in that case by the complainant was that by its purchase of the bonds, which were supposed to represent the benefit conferred upon the town by the appropriation to the railroad company, it became entitled in equity to claim the payment of the

Opinion of the Court.

amount represented by the bonds on the basis of the original consideration. This contention was not sustained, and the complainant was denied the equitable relief sought.

The principle running through these decisions controls the case under consideration, and clearly establishes that the complainants are not entitled to the relief they seek. The fact that the complainants have no remedy at law, arising from the invalidity of the bonds, confers no jurisdiction upon a court of equity to afford them relief. The established rule, although not of universal application, is that equity follows the law, or, as stated in Magniac v. Thomson, 15 How. 281, 299, "that wherever the rights or the situation of parties are clearly defined and established by law, equity has no power to change or unsettle those rights or that situation, but in all such instances the maxim equitas sequitur legem is strictly applicable."

Where a contract is void at law for want of power to make it, a court of equity has no jurisdiction to enforce such contract, or, in the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake to so modify it as to make it legal and then enforce it. Courts of equity can no more disregard statutory and constitutional requirements and provisions than can courts of law. They are bound by positive provisions of a statute equally with courts of law, and where the transaction, or the contract, is declared void because not in compliance with express statutory or constitutional provision, a court of equity cannot interpose to give validity to such transaction or contract, or any part thereof. These general propositions clearly establish that the present bill cannot be sustained, and our conclusion, therefore, is that there was no error in the judgment of the court below in dismissing the bill, and that judgment is accordingly

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissented from the conclusion in this

case.

Counsel for Appellant.

LANE & BODLEY COMPANY v. LOCKE.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.

No. 52. Argued October 25, 1893. Decided November 13, 1893.

In 1871 L. & B., being partners, commenced the manufacture of hydraulic elevators in Cincinnati. S. was employed by them as engineer and draughtsman at a fixed salary of $1200 per annum. While in their employ, and while using their tools and patterns, he invented a stop-valve in 1872, which was patented in February, 1876. In 1876 the partnership was dissolved, and a corporation was formed, called the L. & B. Company, in which the same business was instantly vested in the same interests, and remained there. Meanwhile S. ceased in 1874 to serve L. & B. as engineer and draughtsman, and went into their employ as consulting engineer, at a salary of $2000 per annum. The duties of the latter office did not require him to reside in Cincinnati. He served the partnership in this capacity up to its dissolution, and from that time served the corporation in the same capacity up to 1884. The partnership with his knowledge used his valve in the elevators constructed by them until its dissolution, and after that the corporation used it in the same way and with the like knowledge. In 1884 S. severed his connection with the corporation. During all this time he made no claim for remuneration for the use of his patent, and when asked why he had not, replied that he did not desire to disturb his friendly relations with the L. & B. Company. In 1884 he filed this bill in equity, with the usual prayers for an accounting and for an injunction. Held,

(1) That, on authority of McClurg v. Kingsland, 1 How. 202, it might be presumed that S. had licensed L. & B. and the L. & B. Company to use his invention;

(2) That, on the authority of Solomons v. United States, 137 U. S. 342, it might be presumed that S. had recognized an obligation, flowing from his employment by the partnership and by the corporation, to permit them to use his invention;

(3) That he was guilty of laches in allowing so long a period to elapse before asserting his rights;

(4) That the excuse he gave for not asserting them was entitled to a less favorable consideration by a court of equity than if his conduct had been that of a mere inaction.

IN EQUITY. The case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. L. M. Hosea for appellant.

VOL. CL-13

Opinion of the Court.

Mr. Thomas A. Logan for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the court.

On November 26, 1884, Joseph M. Locke, this defendant in error, filed a bill in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging infringement by the Lane & Bodley Company, a corporation of the State of Ohio, of letters patent No. 173,653, dated February 15, 1876, for an improvement in stop valves, issued to said Locke as inventor. The bill contained the usual allegations, and prayed for an injunction and other relief.

The answer, filed on January 24, 1885, denied that Locke was the original inventor, because the same devices were shown in certain specified earlier patents and publications; denied that said invention was not, for more than two years prior to the application for letters patent therefor, in public use or on sale, but averred, on the contrary, that said apparatus was well known and in public use in the United States for more than two years prior to said application. The answer also contained a history of the original development of the alleged invention by Locke, while in the employment of the firm of Lane & Bodley, and averred a continuous use and sale, by defendant, of the alleged devices, with the knowledge and consent of said Locke, in such circumstances as to show the acquisition by Lane & Bodley of an indefeasible license to use the patented devices. By an amendment to the answer, filed on February 12, 1886, there was set up, as an additional defence, an equitable right in the patent, based upon a written agreement signed by said Locke. The answer also averred that said license and right had become vested in the corporation defendant. The case, having been put at issue, was proceeded in so that the Circuit Court found in favor of the complainant, and, after reference to and report by a master, rendered a final decree against the defendant for the sum of $3667.37, with interest and costs.

The record shows us that the court below held that the patent to Locke had not been anticipated, but was valid in all

Opinion of the Court.

its claims; that the defendant's answer, in respect to its allegations as to Lane & Bodley's right to a license or to an interest in the patent, was not sustained by the evidence; and that, even if Lane & Bodley had such a right, it had not passed to the defendant corporation, under the doctrine of the case of Hapgood v. Hewitt, 119 U. S. 226.

Although the defendant has assigned error to the holdings of the court below in these several particulars, we are relieved from considering the contentions as to the validity of the patent or its anticipation by other patents, by the election of the counsel for the plaintiff in error to confine his case to the effect of the pleadings and evidence as establishing an equitable right or license in the defendant company to use the patented invention.

If the court below were right in thinking that the case of Hapgood v. Hewitt, 119 U. S. 226, was applicable, under the facts of the present case, any further inquiry on our part would be unnecessary.

In that case a corporation employed Hewitt as superintendent, who, while in such employ, invented a plough upon which a patent was granted to him. Having acquired a license growing out of the circumstances of the employment, the corporation was afterwards dissolved, and all its assets passed into the hands of a receiver in liquidation. Subsequently, and under the laws of another State, a new corporation was formed, to which the receiver of the old corporation assigned certain assets, among which, as was claimed, was the aforesaid license. This court held that whatever right the employer had to the invention by the terms of Hewitt's contract of employment was a naked license to make and sell the patented improvement as a part of its business, which right, if it existed, was a merely personal one, and not transferable, and was extinguished with the dissolution of the corporation. This ruling was based on two previous decisions: Troy Iron and Nail Factory v. Corning, 14 How. 193, and Oliver v. Rumford Chemical Works, 109 U. S. 75. In both these cases there were formal assignments, without having words or clauses in them showing that they were meant to be assignable, and the hold