eminent authority on evidence. Those views are set forth in 9 Wigmore, Evidence, 3d Ed.,Sec. 2400 et seq. Authority for this change in Mitchell v. David, D.C. Mun. App., 51 A.2d 375. Unless otherwise inadmissible by some local rule of evidence, all evidence concerning the document relied upon as representing the entire contract between the parties is admissible to ascertain whether in fact the parties to the contract intended the document to constitute an integration of their entire agreement.
Our problem is to determine whether the extrinsic evidence, if believed, constituted fraud, and if not, to what extent, if any, that evidence should be given legal effect. That evidence clearly, convincingly and unequivocally showed that plaintiff made and executed the assignment in reliance upon the following material representations. One, Sobelman's reassurance that plaintiff would share in the profits to be derived from the exploitation of the grain trimmers, and that if the patent were in Sobelman's name, the manufacture of the devices could be expedited and profits come into being sooner. Two, Sobelman's promise that he would protect plaintiff's interest in the invention, which the latter understood to include the patent. Besides our holding that plaintiff is entitled to share in the profits, there was no proof that the manufacture of the devices would not have been accelerated by the patent being in Sobelman's name. Following the maxim that equity considers done that which ought to be done, the intent of Sobelman when he reiterated the profit sharing promise can not be grounds for fraud. All that remains is Sobelman's promise to protect plaintiff's interest in the invention with the intention not to so do. Under the circumstances did such a promise constitute a misrepresentation of an existing fact by the law of the District of Columbia? In Height v. Richmond Port Improvement Co., 1918, 47 App.D.C. 518, at page 534, the court held: ' * * * where one promises to do a certain thing, having at the time no intention of keeping his agreement, it is a fraudulent misrepresentation of a fact, and actionable as such'. This was the law when the District was but thirty-nine years old. Fenwick v. Grimes, D.C.D.C. 1839, 9 Fed.Cas.page 1144, No. 4,734. For dicta apparently to the contrary, see Jackson & Sharp Co. v. Fay, 1902, 20 App.D.C. 105; Baker v. Baker, 1924, 54 App.D.C. 214, 296 F. 961, 964. We have found no case expressly or impliedly overruling the Height case or sustaining the dicta in the Fay and Baker cases. We hold, therefore, that at the present time, the majority rule
stated in the Height case is the law in the District of Columbia. This is also the rule in the State of Maryland. Councill v. Sun Insurance Office of London, 1924, 146 Md. 137, 126 A. 229, 51 A.L.R. 29; Gale v. McCullough, 1912, 118 Md. 287, 84 A. 469. It follows that plaintiff was induced to assign his invention to Sobelman because of the latter's fraud.
Plaintiff's remedy at law being inadequate, some form of equitable relief would appear to be in order. He asks for reassignment of the patent. We think justice would be better served by requiring Sobelman, unless he reassigns a half interest in the patent to plaintiff and agrees to exploit the grain trimmers with reasonable diligence, to reassign the entire right in the patent to plaintiff.
Plaintiff may prepare a decree in accordance with the conclusions here reached.