Stitt v. Eastern R. Co.

Decision Date18 December 1884
Citation22 F. 649
PartiesSTITT, Trustee, v. EASTERN R. CO.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

C. M Reed, for complainant.

A McCallum, for defendant.

COLT J.

This is an action at law to recover damages for alleged infringement of letters patent No. 147,863, granted to George Richards February 24, 1874, for 'improvement in perches for dumping cars. ' The only question before the court is whether the patent is void for want of novelty under the following circumstances contained in the agreed statement of facts:

'That in the year 1868 one William Parker, then a resident of Aspinwall, in the republic of Columbia, and superintendent of the Panama Railroad Company, sent from Aspinwall to the Portland Company, a corporation doing business as manufacturers of cars and locomotives at Portland, in the state of Maine, an order for forty dump cars, to be made for said railroad company in accordance with the description contained in a drawing sent with said order, a copy of which, marked 'Exhibit A,' is filed herewith, and which shows the same invention described and claimed in said letters patent No. 147,863.
'That, in compliance with said order, working drawings were made at said Portland Company's works, of which copies, marked 'Exhibits B and C,' are filed herewith, and that forty cars were built, having iron perches, made substantially as shown in said drawings, (Exhibits B and C,) and embodying in their construction the same invention described and claimed in said letters patent No. 147,863.

'That all the separate parts of each of said cars were completely finished; that all the parts of the first car made were put together with temporary fastenings, in the ship of said company, for the purpose of ascertaining that parts fitted; and that of the remaining cars the iron-work only was set up for the same purpose; that the several parts of all said cars, after such fitting, were taken apart. The perches were complete structures, ready for use when fitted to the cars; but after being fitted were separated from the trucks for the purpose of shipment, and that in this condition they were sent by steamer to New York, and thence to Aspinwall. One set of wheels only was used in setting up all said cars. None of said cars were attached to a locomotive or to other cars, or otherwise used in any manner in the United States, except as aforesaid.

'That the drawings above mentioned, of which Exhibits A, B, and C are copies, have ever since been, and now are, at the shop of said Portland Company, in said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Johnson & Johnson v. Kendall Company
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • March 4, 1963
    ...Linen Co., 82 F. 228 (D.C.1897); Picard v. United Aircraft Corporation, 128 F.2d 632, 634-635 (C.A.2, 1942); Stitt, Trustee, v. Eastern R. Co., 22 F. 649 (C.C. 1884). 40 Plaintiff points out the "many printed publications" are not really that but are the abandoned Cederroth application and ......
  • Chicopee Mfg. Corp. v. Columbus Fiber Mills Co., Civ. A. No. 631.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Georgia
    • June 27, 1958
    ...use" or "on sale" of the invention under Section 102(b) "the primary inquiry is one of identity between two things." Stitt v. Eastern R. Co., D.C. Mass.1884, 22 F. 649, 651. Indeed, the language of 35 U.S.C.A. § 103 refers to Section 102 as requiring that the invention be "identically discl......
  • Picard v. United Aircraft Corporation, 244.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 28, 1942
    ...Brush v. Condit, 132 U.S. 39, 44-48, 10 S.Ct. 1, 33 L.Ed. 251; Parker v. Ferguson, Fed. Cas.No.10,733, 1 Blatchf. 407; Stitt v. Eastern Railway Co., C.C., 22 F. 649. Our own decision in Universal Winding Co. v. Willimantic Linen Co., 2 Cir., 92 F. 391, accepting in this respect Judge Townse......
  • Application of Schlittler, Patent Appeal No. 6263.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
    • June 21, 1956
    ...citing Reed v. Cutter, 20 Fed. Cas. page 435, No. 11,645, 1 Story 590, 599; Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. 120, 21 L.Ed. 821; Stitt v. Eastern R. Co., C.C., 22 F. 649, 650; Imperial Brass Mfg. Co. v. Nelson, 7 Cir., 203 F. 484; and Buser v. Novelty Tufting Machine Co., 6 Cir., 151 F. In Coffin v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT