*1 952 “proper pol- yard provisions of rants and it one of is the co-insurance determining Mc provisions, value. if the sticks” for such icies. Under these Co., Anarney building eighty per- v. Newark Insurance Fire were not insured 902, 176, 247 N.Y. 159 56 A.L.R. value, N.E. cent of its the insureds 1149; England In such as v. Fire be Gervant New considered co-insurers part Co., 393, proportionate 306 118 N.E.2d surance N.Y. share the would ample provisions 574. There evidence was also loss. The co-insurance $21,000 jury’s is jury’s verdict sustain the verdict if the not effective damage. in re who no merit fire The contractor allowed stand. We find damaged paired parts of is verdict some the contention that damage building exces- and is testified that evidence sustained $21,000. Oklahoma, cash value more actual was than sive. synonymous with has been held to be Objection allow is made value, value, mon- actual or sound salable re amount ance of interest on the ey & Liverpool & London Globe value. filing covery sixty days after the 237, McLaughlin, 174 Okl. 70 Ins. Co. v. Okla proof loss. Under the Lon- 248; Co. of P. don, Insurance Palatine was and decisions there statutes homa Co., England Trust Commerce v. of interest. in error the allowance no 236, Connecticut 930. Okl. P. Fidelity-Phenix 22; Fire Okl.Stat.Ann. Hartford, v. Conn. Fire Insurance Co. v. Board York of New Co. Insurance
Youngblood, 184 P.2d 199 Okl. Education, 982. 250, 204 P.2d 201 Okl. value cash the actual the Court said that Affirmed. property and reasonable of price the fair sold on for which it could ordinary of busi- course market in the expression recent ness. most Supreme in Rochester is Court Oklahoma Okl., Short, 252 P.2d Co.v. American Ins. general “As said: where building
rule, the actual cash value at fire de- the time of destruction by many SHOOK, termined factors in order Chester R. Administrator of the Russell, complete Deceased, Estate Alfred proper effectuate indem- Appellant, nity. age reproduction, cost building, v. the condition maintained, cir- it has been all facts and America, The UNITED STATES of logically Appellee. enable cumstances which would of such facts to determine trier No. 12724. proper the loss are correct estimate of Appeals United States Court of yardsticks used order to arrive Sixth Circuit. property insured as value of the Nov. 1956. day out- fire.” An stood on appraiser standing real was of the estate Rehearing Denied Dec. building opinion that value of the principal $75,000. criticism determining the value was his method into consideration he took what He obsolescence”. “functional termed opinion that it was an ele- was of the arriving to be considered in at the ment building. see We no reason value
why not be so it should considered where evidence
proper cases war- *2 Allen, Ohio, Cincinnati, E. S. Allen & Allen, Cincinnati, brief, ap- Ohio, on
pellant. Horn, Dept, Agriculture, A. Gilbert Hugh Chicago, Ill., Martin, K. Thomas Stueve, Cincinnati, Ohio, appellee. SIMONS, Judge, Before Chief MARTIN, Judges. ALLEN Circuit CURIAM. PER Court decreed that Russell, decedent, invention Dr. Alfred Polymeric “A New entitled Class of Ma- terials and Novel Processes for Produc- ing Them,” 2,579,759 and Patent No. is- on such sued invention were the sole and property of exclusive United States. Decedent, from 21, 1947, about March employed March as a re- Regional at the chemist Northern search Laboratory of Research United Department of at Pe- oria, Illinois. His duties were “Under general supervision: plan and conduct embodying employment. . conditions of fundamental Regulations acceptance Decedent’s structure and the chemical agri- binding upon-his lignin as such is administra and hemicelluloses * * *3 express statutory tor in even absence of accord- cultural residues Regulations Co., authorization. Cf. E. F. Drew & ance with Concerning 1561 of Section Inc., Reinhard, Cir., 679; v. 2 170 United States F.2d Patents of the force, Agency, Agriculture Department Restatement the Law of in of Sec then employee tion 397. an to re- When is hired Dr. ports full written Russell made several particular prob superiors devote his lem, at efforts to a invention to his of his experiments specif laboratory patent to requested conduct for a and the the investigate ically assigned purpose, laboratory expert and an invention the to performanc subject. expert prepared results the The form the e belongs work, employer. invention, to Mar patent specifications the the Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co., shall v. 3 the Chief which was transmitted to Cir., 217; Houghton 215, Agricultural 175 F.2d v. and Indus- the Bureau of States, Cir., 386, opin United 4 23 F.2d Chemistry De- trial of the United States by Judge Parker, ion certiorari denied partment Russell 592, 528, 1004; 277 U.S. 48 S.Ct. 72 L.Ed. copy memoran- initialed file of the the States, 342, transmittal, Solomons v. United 137 U.S. approving the dum of thus 667; 88, 11 34 L.Ed. S.Ct. McAleer v. patent as- recommendation signed the 424, States, 160, Agriculture. United 150 U.S. 14 S.Ct. Secretary to the 1130; States, L.Ed. Gill v. United 160 37 On June Dr. Russell died 480; 322, U.S. 16 S.Ct. 40 L.Ed. letters administration on his estate Peck, Standard Parts Co. 264 v. U.S. were issued the Probate Court 68 L.Ed. S.Ct. the County, Hamilton adminis- Ohio. The employee last the case was hired assist application trator filed a on the working employer the in out a certain invention described above United the problem his time to and to devote de the States Patent issued in Office velopment process machinery of a question to the administrator. The Unit- production spring for front complaint ed later filed the here- demanding an automobile. We can no in, see substan that the court order arrangement here, in tial difference assign administrator employed plan where decedent Judgment States. was en- United fundamental and conduct in favor tered in of the United States. vestigations Investiga as described. The Court found under the assigned subject directly tions of the led invention was record evolved as invention in suit. and natural result of the direct dece- findings of the District Court assigned execution of his dent’s duties clearly judgment erroneous and laboratory. is affirmed. Appellant’s principal conten that, statutory the absence of tion Rehearing Petition for On Department provision, United States Judge. ALLEN, is not authorized of quire tó re Circuit assignment ques Although petition rehearing tion to the United States. While no stat utory briefly questions presents discussed in authority is cited which authorizes opinion court, former of this it in- Regulations the issuance Concern aspects case which cludes we ing Patents, they formally drawn, proper to consider. deem it presented when he decedent assumed Department complied Manual duties, Patent and he with his their Agriculture, repeatedly respect introduced in evidence provisions with attorney, by appellant’s question. Regulations, contains De- invention therefore, Regulations Concerning Pat- parties partment were treated as following pursuant para- among Act of Government ents, which the cited, he will so state and directly pertinent here: above graph is privilege presenting exercise his involved “If the invention justification views. In this his specifically to be within found assigned course, give particular should, he employee of an duties assign- description of his work required to dedicate will be by him.” ment as understood or, desired it is public in the event Appellant contends that it is not control retain administrative had shown Dr. Russell ever saw or Depart- subject matter copy of the Patent Manual. The Man as- ment, will be invention such *4 laboratory ual was available to all em Agri- Secretary signed of to the ployees. as to Under the rule established does an invention culture. When regulations the effect of administrative scope of em- the come within duly adopted, Russell Dr. was bound inventor-employee ployment the of regulations Depart the of the subject of matter the where and presumed and was ment Government, pat- a to the interest acquainted to be with them. Common through application filed will be ent Plaisted, 375, 19 wealth v. 148 Mass. the Department, which under the N.E. head L.R.A. or obtains retains Government personnel that, her to the officetestified right and right use shop free or recollection, Russell, on the first best Dr. rights remain commercial other all given day duty, all material inventor.” employees. interest to Depart- No. 731 of the Memorandum part As to the of Memorandum 731 concerning patents ment memoranda quoted, steps taken, above the reports in the Patent included Manual. It con- made, and conversations held between following provision: tained superiors Dr. Russell and his with ref- employee-inventor, “The either on cogent erence to his invention constitute own or under instruc- his initiative acquaintance evidence of his with the by superior officer, pre- shall tions memorandum. All of his actions com- description pare a detailed of his plied specifically quoted para- with the together with an illustra- invention graph. May, 1847, pre- Dr. Russell drawing, if the invention is sus- tive pared description a detailed in- ceptible illustration in man- to this vention, together with elaborate chem- operations purposes and ner. ical formulae. This was submitted should also dis- invention be writing by Schiepp, Dr. im- Russell’s description will sub- This be closed. superior, Lathrop, mediate to head of writing chief of mitted Agricultural Residues Division. the inventor is em- in which bureau ployed Conversations then were held between through supe- the immediate Cheesman, superiors. Dr. Russell and his employee-inventor. The of the rior specifications subsequently Patent will transmittal contain letter prepared Cheesman from Dr. Rus- and residence address name full sell’s notes and sent to the Chief of the and inventor make known Washington. Bureau Cheesman testi- concerning disposal wishes his to the effect fied Dr. that Russell saw rights. If involved of the letter of transmittal dated October to dedicate his wishes inventor 31, 1947, before it was to mailed Wash- assign public or invention ington. copy A of the letter bore his Secretary Agriculture, he initials. If, however, only he so state. (cid:127)need Memorandum applicable Under No. law 731 if under decides had to retain wished retain commercial Russell rights commercial entitled he right shop in his invention he subject rights, should have tion, hydrogenation, dehydrogena- in the letter of transmittal. so stated tion, etc., Regulation dehydration, studies invention 1561 if the Under scope of Dr. the derived did not come within uses; products employment he was entitled commercial Russell’s assign- give responsible description his work for the conversion any may processes developed his commercial ment and to ask retain which through rights. only promises indicates he took have industrial action pilot-plant stage; recommendation correlate approved the assigned Sec- that the data these prepare per- retary reports; and to form related duties. Appellant his contention renews approval The invention met with and! scope not fall within did encouragement from Dr. su- Russell’s employment Unit and that of decedent’s periors. think falls We within Corpo Condenser Dubilier ed States v. ration, Duties, scope Description L. 53 S.Ct. 289 U.S. every broad, and that each requires reversal. therefore Ed. action, study proceeding authorized bearing here. has no This decision *5 Description of Duties is not re- employees the Bu Dubilier case quired give patent an immediate project upon a Standards worked reau of commercial usefulness. assigned problem not involved conclusively This record shows that they no instruc received them Dr. Russell knew of months- for number with had no conversations tions and patent applica- before his death that his Also, superiors. The Bureau their assignment tion had recommended regulation. patent had no Standards Secretary. He knew Condenser v. Dubilier United States entirely separate if that supra, page Corporation, assignment job from his he was en- Upon question whether protection. titled commercial But Descrip Russell’s patent fell within took no action. reproduce per Duties we tion urged It ap portion thereof: tinent plication which stated inven might by government tion be used supervision: general To “Under payment royalties without con fundamental plan and conduct stitutes conclusive declaration in chem- on the grant only right shop tent lig- properties of structure ical government. However, this statement agri- hemicelluloses from nin and conformity made U.S.C. § residues; supervise cultural formerly required Section in or lignins, study properties of granting pat der to authorize the agricultural residues, prepared from payment ent without the government of fees hydro- degradation, oxidation, employee. Cf. United isolation; genation, to conduct sim- Corpora v. Dubilier Condenser lignins investigations of result- ilar page tion, supra, at 199. Also it must processing ing of residues from the conjunction read in with rec production, sac- by pulping, furfural in the letter ommendation of transmittal etc.; to direct investi- charification assigned Sec separation gations into the retary of of hemicelluloses saccharification, judgment or other It follows- pulping, preparation Court was correct on the facts liquors; direct lignin petition this record and the furfural and for re- derivatives hearing by polymeriza- is denied. hemicelluloses