Harris

Plaintiff seeks a reversal of the judgment, by which he was denied all relief, on the ground that the findings are contrary to and not supported by the evidence. We find his position well taken.

The action is based upon a contract between defendants (copartners) and plaintiff, in which it is recited that the plaintiff had been working for some time in defendant’s employ in the development of a cigarette vending machine, and that defendants were desirous of acquiring all plaintiff’s interest in “any inventions or especially constructive parts that may have been suggested . . . and evolved” by plaintiff while in their employ. Accordingly, the contract continued that plaintiff ‘ ‘ does hereby sell, assign and transfer ... all his right, title and interest in and to said invention or any of the parts or mechanism used in connection with said invention” to the defendants. He further agreed to execute such “additional assignment as may be necessary if any for formal recording in the United States Patent Office at Washington, D. C., of any patent that may be issued” to him. “For and in -consideration of the premises” defendants agreed to pay plaintiff $6,000 within about a year or at…