[HK211AAB], Letter from Sherburne Blake Eaton to Thomas Alva Edison, April 16th, 1889
https://edisondigital.rutgers.edu/document/HK211AAB
→ View document with UniversalViewer
→ View document on Archive.org
→ Re-use this digital object via a IIIF manifest
Title
[HK211AAB], Letter from Sherburne Blake Eaton to Thomas Alva Edison, April 16th, 1889
Editor's Notes
Re Entz contract. Referring to Mr. Tate's letter of the 11th. Inst. With enclosures, I beg to say: (1) The contract which you and Mr. Entz have executed, dated March 15, 1889, is not the contract which I prepared, but is substantially a copy of it. I have compared the copy which I prepared with this contract which has been executed, and I find that they are substantially alike. So that is all right. (2) On the first page of the executed contract at the end of the eighth line and the beginning of the ninth line, from the bottom of that page, the word "January" should be erased, and these words inserted, to wit, February 11th. The fact is that the two assignments were executed on January 3rd. And February 11th., 1889. At the bottom of page 2 of the said executed contract of March 15, 1889 a single word has been omitted, to wit, "paid". The executed copies of the contracts should be changed so as to read thus: no royalty shall be paid. I have inserted that word in your original copy, and Mr. Insull should see that Mr. Entz inserts it in his. It was clearly a clerical omission. (3) In the executed agreement the applications are referred to as filed Dec. 6, 1888, S.N. 292, 837, and Jan. 12, 1889, S.N, 296, 158. But in the said assignments of Jan. 3 and Feb. 11, which Mr. Entz has executed passing title to Mr. Edison, the said applications are referred to in a different manner, that is to say not by the dates when they were filed nor by their serial numbers, but by the said executed assignments refer to invention covered by secifications executed Nov. 17, 1888 and Jan. 1889. In order to avoid mistake I have just obtained from Messrs. Dyer & Seely in writing, such data as enables me to inform you that the aforesaid descriptions in reality refer to the same thing, to wit: (a) The invention described in the specification executed by Mr. Entz on Nov. 17, 1888, is the indentical application which is also referred to as having been filed on Dec. 6, 1888, S.N. 292, 837. (b) The invention described in the specification executed by Mr. Entz on Jan. 2, 1889 S.N. 296, 158. (4) Messrs. Dyer & Seely notified me today that a patent has been issued on the aforesaid application filed on Jan. 12, 1889, S.N. 296, 158, the patent bearing date April 2, 1889, and being numbered 400, 838. (5) I will send a copy of this letter to Mr. Insull. I suggest that he give that copy to Mr. Entz, for him to attach it to his said agreement of Mar. 15, 1889. As regards this letter itself, I will attach it to your original copy of the said Entz agreement of Mar. 15, 1889. As regards this letter itself, I will attach it to your original copy of the said Entz agreement of Mar. 15, 1889, now in my possession, before I return it to you herewith. I suggest that Mr. Insull also have Mr. Entz insert the word "paid" at the end of page 2 of his copy of the said contract. As regards the above mentioned date, erroneously stated, at the 7th., line from the bottom of page one of the said contract, it is hardly necessary to change it. I wthink that the explanation contained in this letter will set that straight enough, especially when copies of this letter are attached by both you and Mr. Entz to the two orginal copies of the said agreement. (6) I return herewith the said original agreement of Mar. 15, 1889, (with this letter attached thereto), also the Entz assignment of Jan. 3, 1889, also the Entz assignment of Feb. 11, 1889, and Mr. Insull's letter to Mr. Tate, dated Mar. 20, 1889
Author
Recipient
Mentioned
Date
1889-04-16
Type
Subject
Folder/Volume ID
HK211-F
Microfilm ID
144:1205
Document ID
HK211AAB
Publisher
Thomas A. Edison Papers, School of Arts and Sciences, Rutgers University