tained and particularly described: it must be set forth in the most minute detail. The disclosure of the secret is considered as the price which the patentee pays for this limited monopoly, and therefore it ought to be full and correct, in order that the subject of his patent may at its expiration be well known, and that the public may reap from it the same advantages as have accrued to him." It will be seen below, that a late statute has somewhat reduced the risks arising from a mistake in the specification.

Of the features which should characterize the specification it is almost impossible to give a satisfactory abstract. One author on this subject says, "It is a fundamental rule, on which all others for making and judging of a specification depend, that the secret must be disclosed, and the invention described in such a manner that men of common understanding, with a moderate knowledge of the art, may be enabled to make the subject of the patent.

"The description must be confined to the manufacture, that the novelty may be known. Extraneous matter, however learned, must not be introduced to darken it. Though it is addressed to the public in general, it need not be so circumstantial, or so explanatory, that persons entirely ignorant of the science from which the subject is taken may thereby alone be able to learn and use the invention. Nor, on the other hand, should the description be so concise as to become obscure." 2

The description must be so worded that the reader can clearly perceive the exact extent of the discovery made by the patentee, without confounding it with such elements in its construction as are not new discoveries. If things are described as being used to produce the effect which really have not been used, they are presumed to be stated for the purpose of misleading, and will have the effect of destroying the patent. Such also is the effect of any attempt to conceal the use of known materials by an obscure method of describing them, or by a technical description of the method in which they are formed, such as to make that appear part of the invention.5 In the case of the Seidlitz powders, the patent for which was on such grounds reduced, Chief Justice Abbott said, "If a person on reading the specification would be led to suppose a laborious process necessary to the production of any one of the ingredients, when, in fact, he

1 Godson, 107.- Ibid. 118. See Holroyd, 100.-3 Godson, 128.Ibid. 133.-5 Holroyd, 108.

might go to a chemist's shop and buy the same thing as a separate simple part of the compound, the public are misled."1

Plans may be introduced. It does not appear to be necessary that they should be so in any case, but it is for the discretion of the applicant to insert them, if by doing so he can make the specification more intelligible. He will do so at the risk of his patent being void, if the plans are inapplicable or deceptive; but, on the other hand, if between the description and the plans the specification is made intelligible, he has the advantage of whatever aid to clearness is derived from the plans.2

Improvements. Where an improvement merely has been invented, care must be taken not to make the terms of the specification such that a reader may be led to infer that a part of the commodity, well known before, has been invented by the patentee. Many valuable patents have been rendered void by such discrepancies. The following are suggested as modes of specification in the case of improve

ments:

3

"First, By describing the whole manufacture, and then particularizing, with great exactness, the addition of the inventor.

"Secondly, By a description of the whole manufacture, pointing out the parts that either are old, or not material to the invention.

"Thirdly, By giving an accurate and intelligent description of the improvement, and the manner in which it is applied to the subject, or parts that are old.

"Fourthly, By describing the whole manufacture, if it be an improvement of another for which a patent has been obtained, taking care to refer in the new specification to that of the former patent." 194

SECT. 8.-Extent of the Privilege.

The description of the invention in the patent is in the patentee's own words, and at his own risk. It is an absolute condition in every patent, that he shall not, by Assignment or otherwise, extend the privilege to any number of persons exceeding five, or open any books for public subscriptions to raise money for carrying on the operation

1 Savory v. Price, 1823, 1 R. & M. 1.- Bloxam v. Elsee, 1825, 1 Car. & Pay. 558.- Holroyd, 88, et seq.—* Godson, 156-7.—5 Holroyd, 77.

from persons exceeding that number, and that he shall not presume to act as a corporate body:1 On the subject of these limitations, Mr Carpmael says, "The words of this clause are so special, that if taken to the letter [they] might almost be deemed capable of rendering any patent void where more than five persons are interested, either directly or indirectly; yet it has generally been considered that permissive licenses to use or sell an invention to any extent may be granted by a patentee, provided that the consideration for such license is a sum certain, either received on the whole at the time of granting the license, or in the form of a sum paid annually during the continuance of the grant. But most lawyers have considered that a permissive license to use an invention, the patentee receiving part of the profits, would be a division of the letters-patent, and [that] if such licensees, including the patentee, exceed the number of five, the patent would be void. There is another description of license which is very commonly granted by patentees, and that is a license of an exclusive character to certain persons in trade to make or use the invention. On this subject the author has taken a great variety of opinions, which coincide with his own, that a license which grants to any number of individuals the right of using or making an invention, such license setting forth that the patentee will not license others within a given district, or that the patentee will only grant licenses to a certain number, or that the patentee, after licensing a certain number, covenants not to license any other person at other than a much higher consideration than that which has been given by the first licensees, should the number of such licensees, including the patentee and any partner or partners he may have, exceed the number of five, it is considered that such granting of licenses would give a direct interest in the letterspatent to each of such individuals, and the same would thereby be rendered void."2

The patentee can convey his privilege in full, with his right of action, or he may communicate it by License, or convey a share in it, subject to the limitations noticed above. It is available to creditors on bankruptcy. The right is held to be heritable, and so attachable only by Adjudication.3 The remedies for infringement of patent are noticed under the head of Remedies for Civil Injuries.

'Godson, App. Holroyd, 74. Carpmael, 75.-2 Carpmael, 76, 77. See Holroyd, 145. B. C. I. 115. See above, Part II. Chap. 1.

PART III.

SUCCESSION.

CHAPTER I.

SUCCESSION TO HERITAGE.*

SECT. 1.-Legal Succession.

Male Descendants. -THE male children are first in the order of succession. The eldest son succeeds in preference to others. If the person who would have been the nearest heir is dead, he will be "represented," as it is termed, by the person who is his nearest heir. Thus, where one has died leaving a second son, surviving his eldest who has left children, the eldest grandson will succeed. But, if the eldest son dies without issue, the succession goes to the eldest surviving son, and so on.1

Females. If there are no sons, or their descendants, the next heirs are the daughters. These do not succeed according to Primogeniture, or priority of age, but as Heirs-portioners, the estate being divided equally among them. If any one of the daughters has died leaving issue, she will be represented by heirs, who will succeed to her portion, the eldest son first, &c. according to the ordinary rule. If there is a mansion-house attached to the estate, the eldest Heirportioner succeeds to it, and receives as her share the portion of the land in which it is situated.2 The eldest has the custody of the title-deeds of the estate. She succeeds to any title in the family which may be held by a female. The eldest is not entitled to the heirship moveables. (See above, p. 46.) Where a Patronage is attached to the succession, each portioner exercises the right of Presentation in her turn.5

Collaterals-Conquest.-If there are no descendants the

* For the distinction between heritable and moveable, see above, p. 45. - E. iii. 8, 7, 12. Sandford on Heritable Succession, i. 1, et seq.-2 E. iii. 8, 13. S. H. S. i. 9.- S. H. S. i. 12, 16.—4 Ibid. 17.—-5 Ibid.

succession falls on the Collaterals, or the brothers and sisters and their representatives. In the succession of one brother to another a distinction occurs between what is termed in this case Heritage and what is termed Conquest. The former is what one has succeeded to from an ancestor, whether in the natural course of law or under the limitations of a destination. The latter is what one has got otherwise than through his ancestors, as by purchase, gift, &c. The term conquest cannot apply to all the kinds of right which are included under the broad definition of heritable rights (see above, p. 45), it includes only all heritable rights connected with land, except leases and teinds. It may technically be said to include all rights in which Infeftment may be taken, (see above, p. 56), Teinds excepted. If the person to be succeeded to was the eldest brother, his property, whether Heritage or Conquest, goes to the eldest remaining brother, who may be represented by his offspring as in the case of sons. If the deceased has left both an older and a younger brother than himself, his Heritage goes to the immediate younger brother, while his Conquest goes to the immediate elder. If the deceased was the youngest brother, the heir of conquest and of heritage are united in one person, the immediate elder brother. It will prevent confusion to state, that the same rule takes place in the succession of uncles, to be shortly noticed; the uncles standing in the same situation as if they succeeded to the father of their nephew.3 That which was conquest, on having been once succeeded to in that capacity, becomes heritage; so, if an immediate elder brother succeeds as heir of conquest, on his death the immediate younger brother, if he have no children, will succeed. Failing brothers by the full blood and their descendants, sisters by the full blood succeed as heirs-portioners in the same manner as daughters. With sisters there can be no question as to whether the property is heritage or conquest.5 Failing collaterals of the full blood, brothers or sisters Consanguinean-that is, by the same father-succeed, according to the same rules as those by the whole blood. Thus, if the only child of his father's first marriage has left heritable property, it will go to the eldest brother by the second, and if there is no brother by the second, to the sisters by the. second. Brothers and sisters uterine, or of the half-blood by the mother's side, do not succeed to each other.7

1 E. iii. 8, 15, 16. S. H. S. i. 34, et seq.- E. iii. 8, 14. S. H. S. i. 31. 3 Ibid.-E. iii. 8, 15.-5 S. H. S. i. 4. Ibid.--7 E. iii. 8, 8.

6