United States Slicing Mach. Co. v. Wolf, Sayer & Heller, Inc.

Citation243 F. 412
Decision Date13 June 1917
Docket Number507.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
PartiesU.S. SLICING MACH. CO. v. WOLF, SAYER & HELLER, Inc.

Brown Nissen & Sprinkle, of Chicago, Ill. (Frank T. Brown and A. J Crane, both of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for plaintiff.

Max W Zabel, of Chicago, Ill. (Sydney Stein, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for defendant.

SANBORN District Judge.

This case is entirely separate from the ones just considered relating to the rind-remover, although pertaining to the same machine. Three patents are involved: Van Berkel, 806,603; Van Berkel, 895,213; and Stukart, 1,039,210.

Title to the Van Berkel Patents. In respect to the two Van Berkel patents, a question of title is raised by defendant, and in view of its fundamental importance should be first considered. The chain of title is: (1) Van Berkel to an English corporation, called Van Berkel's Slicing Machine Manufacturing Company, Limited; and (2) Berkel &amp Parnall's Slicing Machine Manufacturing Company, Limited, to U.S. Slicing Machine Company, plaintiff here. The missing link between the two Van Berkel Companies is sought to be supplied by a certificate under the English Companies Consolidation Act of 1908, reading as follows:

'Certificate of the Incorporation of a Company.
'Companies' Registration Office, 30 Mar., 1914.
'I hereby certify that Berkel & Parnall's Slicing Machine Manufacturing Company limited (originally called Van Berkel's Slicing Machine Manufacturing Company, Limited), and which name was changed by special resolution and with the authority of the Board of Trade on the twenty-ninth day of October, one thousand nine hundred and nine, was incorporated under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1907, as a limited company, on the 9th day of September, one thousand nine hundred and eight.
'Given under my hand at London, this thirtieth day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.

Geo. J. Sargent, 'Assistant Registrar of Joint Stock Companies.'

The instrument is properly authenticated as to the official character of the assistant registrar who signs it. This paper is neither an assignment of any interest in a patent nor a copy of the incorporation certificate or of the resolution changing the corporate name. It is not, therefore, within section 4898 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. 1916, Sec. 9444) relating to patent assignments. Nor is it within any common-law rule or equity rule of documentary evidence. The general governing rule is that the official certification of a fact drawn or gathered from a public record is a mere legal conclusion, or the opinion of the certifying officer, and so not admissible as evidence. He should copy the record verbatim, certifying that he has done so, and that the copy is an accurate transcript of the original. Wigmore, Secs. 2162, 2165; Mandel v. Swan Land Co., 154 Ill. 177, 40 N.E. 462, 27 L.R.A. 313, 45 Am.St.Rep. 124; People ex rel. v. Lee, 112 Ill. 113, 1 N.E. 471; Greer v. Ferguson, 104 Ga. 552, 30 S.E. 943; Hudkins v. Bush, 69 W.Va. 194, 71 S.E. 106, Ann.Cas. 1913A, 533.

While the question is largely technical, and I would much prefer to ignore the objection, I cannot see any way out of it but to decide that the suit must fail as to the two Van Berkel patents for want of proof of title in the plaintiff, without prejudice to another action, if plaintiff shall be so advised.

The Stukart Patent for the Sharpener. This leaves for consideration only the sharpener patent; some 10,000 machines equipped with this device having been sold by plaintiff. The application was filed June 12, 1912, and the patent issued September 24, 1912. So no question of laches in bringing suit applies to this patent, though it was raised as to the two other suits.

The invention relates to a device consisting of two small circular whetstones arranged above the circular knife, and is thus described by counsel for plaintiff:

'This patent covers a special grinding apparatus particularly adapted to properly sharpen the concavo-convex revolving knife of a meat-slicing machine. In order to properly sharpen the concavo-convex knife, it
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Russo v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • January 5, 1939
    ...... plaintiff's Exhibit B. This states that the subscriber,. Dr. Kisiel, had treated ... the United States consul at Rome, the document is properly. ...139] original.’ United States. Slicing Machine Co. v. Wolf, Sayer & Heller, Inc., D.C.,. ......
  • Russo v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • January 5, 1939
    ...so, and that the copy is an accurate transcript of the original." United States Slicing Machine Co. v. Wolf, Sayer & Heller, Inc., D.C., 243 F. 412, 413; Guettler v. Alfsen, 53 App.D.C. 215, 289 F. 613, 614. "It has always been an accepted principle, for accessible public records, that the ......
  • Guettler v. Alfsen
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 7, 1923
    ...289 F. 613 GUETTLER v. ALFSEN. No. 1572.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia.May ...As the. court said in United States Slicing Machine Co. v. Wolf,. Sayer & Heller, Inc. ......
  • United States Slicing Mach Co. v. Wolf, Sayer & Heller, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • January 7, 1919
    ...District of Illinois. Suit by the United States Slicing Machine Company against Wolf, Sayer & Heller, Incorporated. Decree for defendant (243 F. 412), and plaintiff appeals. Frank T. Brown, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Max W. Zabel, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee. Before BAKER, ALSCHULE......

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