APoLr,1NAms co. v. seaman. 21
operating with Saxlebner collusively to violate the complainant’s
right to the exclusive sale of the water he also would be restrained.
In such a case the foundation of equitable redress would be the breach
of covenant on the part of Saxlehner, and the defendant when acting
in aid would be identified with Saxlehner and amenable to the remedy
as though he were Saxlehner himself. But it is important to bear in
mind that the case would be one for equitable cognizance, and the
remedy of an injunction merely upon the ground that the complain-
ant’s damages arising from the breach of covenant could not be rep-
arably redressed at law.
It was not possible by any contract or grant between Saxlehner
and the complainant to create a territorial title to the products of the
spring; no such title is known to the law of personal property. No
analogy can be drawn from the law of patents for inventions, because
the title to this species of property is purely statutory; and it is by
force of arbitrary law alone that the title in the incorporeal property
can be subdivided into territorial parts. The decisions which have
been relied on in argument as sustaining the right of the owner of a pat-
ent to prevent a sale or use of the patented thing outside of the territo-
rial limits for which a license has been granted, although the license
authorized a sale and the sale was made within the territorial limits
of the license, have therefore no application to the present case. The
rights of the complainant rest purely in covenant. "If Saxlehner him-
self should sell the water here the purchaser would acquire title to the
article with all the rights of a proprietor to use it or to do with it as
he might see fit. Suppose the purchaser should be fully aware at the
time of buying that Saxlehner had covenanted with the complainant
that the latter alone should have the privilege of selling the water
here, could it be seriously questioned that the purchaser would never-
theless acquire a perfect title? Although the defendant was fully
aware when he bought the water which he has imported from those
to whom Saxlehner had sold it of the terms of the agreement between
Saxlehner and the complainant, that circumstance does not help the
complainants case. There was no breach of covenant on the part of
Saxlehner; on the contrary, he did all that was in his power to carry
out the agreement between himself and the complainant. The de-
fendant did not expressly or impliedly assume not to sell the water
within the territory ceded to the complainant; on the contrary, he
repudiated any recognition of such an obligation. The insuperable
difficulty in the way of the complainant is that any purchaser of the
water, wherever he purchases it, acquires a valid title to treat it as his __
own property.
Upon Hrst impression it would seem that the defendant cannot be
justified in a course of conduct which is calculated if not deliberately
prompted by the design to deprive the complainant of the benefit of
its contract with Saxlehner, and that there must be some principle
of equity which can be invoked to prevent him from doing that which