Hubbard v. King Ax Co.

• Decision Date: 23 May 1898
• Docket Number: 5,425.
• Citation: 89 F. 713
• Parties: HUBBARD v. KING AX CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

89 F. 713

HUBBARD v. KING AX CO. et al.

No. 5,425.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

May 23, 1898

Bakewell & Bakewell and E. A. Angell, for complainant.

Chester Bradford and A. E. Lynch, for respondents.

RICKS District Judge.

This bill in equity is to establish the validity of letters patent No. 500,084, issued to James Taylor, dated June 20, 1893, for an improvement in the manufacture of axes. The bill avers the utility and extensive use of the patented improvements, and alleges that the defendant has infringed the same, and prays for an injunction, for an accounting for damages and profits and for general relief. The answer admits the grant of the letters patent, denies infringement, and alleges anticipation by certain prior letters patent of the United States.

The patent in suit is for an invention in the nature of a drop press for the forging of axes or similar eye tools, and particularly calculated to complete the manufacture of axes by what is known as the 'hammering off' process. The state of the art at the time of this invention was in the forming of the body portion of the ax, which contains the eye, and to which, after it has been forged, the bit or edge of the ax is welded. F. T. Powell, a witness in the case thus described the process of making axes before the use of the complainant's machine. In reply to a question as to how the machine was used, and how they carried out the process of manufacture before the machine was completed, he says:

'Why, we use it for hammering off the head and forming the eye, completing the forging after the bit is drawn. The manner of doing this work before we used the present machine was with small drops, a number of them, and upset hammers, open dies. The ax, after the bit was drawn, the head was heated, mandrel inserted, placed in upright dies in an upset block, the head upset, taken out, mandrel drove out of the eye, inserted from the other side, taken back to the upset hammer and upset again, mandrel extracted, edged under the drop, handed to the straightener, who drove short pins both sides of the eye, and went under the drop, back to the drop, and dropped both edge and sideways a number of blows. That is about the process by the method adopted about eight years ago. For the quantity we are doing now at Jamestown it would require about five of these small drops, and a heater, a helper, and a straightener for each small drop, whereas, with the present method,-- the bumper and weight process,-- it requires but one large drop and three men and a boy, and one small drop with two men, to average about 2,400 pieces per day. The present method, besides saving largely in labor, saves in power, fuel, makes more uniform, better goods, forged nearer to a finished ax, requires less labor and less cost to grind, less grit to grind with, less power, less wear and tear. It is the biggest advance in the manufacture of axes, that I know of, that has been made for the last fourteen years, the time of my connection with the ax business. The forging does a large part of what was formerly done on the grindstone, by this method.'

The same witness says:

'The cost by hand was seven or eight times as much as it is by the bumper process; that is, the hand process was reduced in cost by the small drops and upset hammers process about 15 cents a dozen, I should say. Then that cost was reduced by this process-- the bumper process-- from 12 to 15 cents a dozen or more.'

Other experts testified as to the state of the art, and demonstrated clearly the great progress made in the manufacture of axes by the patent in controversy. Under the old process, the horizontal crevice between the upper and lower dies permitted the metal, when in the molten state, to ooze out through the crevice, and form large fins, which extended around the edge of the ax, and which it was necessary to remove after the ax was made, either by grinding or cutting. By the use of the machine covered by this patent, the box die in the bottom of the machine, into which the metal was placed, was the exact form of the die placed in the drop, so that when the die in the drop fell in the die below the edges fitted so closely that there was but little chance for fins to form around the outer edges. The use of the box die retained the ax in its proper shape, and drove the metal around the mandrel in such a way as to give it a perfect eye and a well-formed head. The ax, when it came out of the die, was solid, and generally so smooth as to require but little more labor to make it complete in form and weight. The patentee himself described the operation as follows:

'The ax, with the mandrel still passing therethrough, is placed in the cavity in the lower die, with the plunger butting against the rear end of the poll, and the upper die is reciprocated. As the ax lies in a box die, it is compressed in all directions by the blow of the upper die, and is forced into the exact form desired, with a finely finished surface and a squared end to the poll, while the formation of fins between the dies is prevented by the plunger, which will give sufficiently to allow the flow of the metal endwise. The plunger or hammer head will not, however, allow sufficient endwise flow of the metal to distort the ax, on account of the quickness of the blow, it acting in the manner of an anvil. The plunger will adjust itself automatically to an ax having too little or too much metal therein, and finish the same as perfectly as one having exactly the right amount; and a spring may be employed to hold the same in place, though I prefer the weight shown. The advantages of my invention will be appreciated by those skilled in the art. The flowing of the metal sidewise and the lengthening of the eye portion, which always takes place when open dies are used in finishing, are entirely obviated, as well as the fin formation, which always occurs when ordinary box dies are employed. The surface of the ax is compressed and given a high polish, and its edges are made sharp and exact.'

There is no claim made that either the drop press or the box dies are new. The defendant first contends that there is no novelty or utility in the invention. In addition to that part of the machine and the process of manufacture already...