Brown v. Texas Cactus Hedge Co.

Citations

• 64 Tex. 396

Syllabus

<p>1. Jurisdiction. — Though the United States Revised Statutes, seo. 639, provide that the circuit courts of the United States have original jurisdiction of all suits at law or in equity arising under the patent or copyright laws of the United States, yet when, in determining rights involved in a suit pending in a state court, a question involving the validity of a patent arises incidentally or collaterally, the state court has power to decide it. Following Nash v. Lull, 103 Mass., 63; Rich v. Hotchkiss, 16 Conn., 409; David v. Park, 103 Mass., 503, and other cases cited in the opinion.</p> <p>3. Void patent.— See opinion for allegations iu pleading, which, if true, established the fact that a patent issued from the United States patent office, to make cactus hedges, was issued without authority of law, and was void.</p> <p>8. Fraudulent conveyance.— A purchaser from one who sold with intent to delay, hinder or defraud creditors must, as against such creditors seeking to subject the property to payment of their debts, show that he paid a valuable consideration, and that he was not chargeable with notice of the fraudulent , intent.</p> <p>4. Same.— Though suc-h purchaser was not chargeable with notice of the fraudulent intent of his vendor, yet if he did not pay a valuable consideration, no title passed as against such creditors. A void patent would constitute no consideration, and if void, both the contracting parties would be chargeable with notice of its invalidity.</p> <p>5. Fraud — Inadequacy of consideration.— Inadequacy of consideration paid for specific articles is, when fraud is charged, always a circumstance to be considered in determining the question of good faith.</p>