Adams Electric R. Co. v. Lindell R. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 September 1894
• Citation: 63 F. 986
• Parties: ADAMS ELECTRIC RY. CO. v. LINDELL RY. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

63 F. 986

ADAMS ELECTRIC RY. CO. v. LINDELL RY. CO.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

September 17, 1894

Given Campbell and Upton M. Young (Robert H. Parkinson and A. C Fowler, of counsel), for complainant.

Eaton Lewis, Boyle & Adams (Frederic H. Betts and Samuel R. Betts of counsel), for defendant.

HALLETT District Judge.

Complainant's patent, No. 300,828, was issued June 24, 1884, upon an application filed December 15, 1883. The claims of the patent, three in number, are as follows:

'(1) The combination, with the axle which carries the driven wheels, the axle boxes or bearings, and a frame secured to, or formed in one with, said boxes or bearings, of an electric motor, whose armature is mounted to revolve on said axle, and whose field is attached to and carried by said frame, substantially as and for the purposes hereinbefore set forth. (2) The combination, with the driven wheels, their axle and axle boxes or bearings, and a field-supporting frame secured to, or formed in one with, said boxes or bearings, of an electric motor, whose armature and field are carried by said axle and frame, respectively, and intermediate motion-transmitting gearing, also carried by said frame, and meshing on the one hand with a gear on the driven wheels, and on the other with a gear on the armature hub. (3) The driven wheels, their axle and axle boxes or bearings, and the supporting frame secured to, or formed in one with, said boxes or bearings, in combination with the armature mounted to revolve on said axle, and the field magnets, commutator brushes, and intermediate motion-transmitting gearing mounted in and carried by said supporting frame, under the arrangement and for operation as hereinbefore set forth.'

None of the elements of the combination described in the claims was new at the date of the application. The motor and its several parts, the car axle, the axle boxes, the field-supporting frame, and all other things mentioned in the claims, were in use at and before that time. The form of some of the elements was changed in the Adams combination, as we shall have occasion to point out in the course of this opinion, but it is clear that none of them were new at that time. And the arrangement of the several parts with reference each to the other is not regarded as of substance in the invention. For illustration: In complainant's patent the armature was made to revolve on the driven axle, as stated in the first and third claims, and there were two fields in perspective, one on each side of the axle and armature. In respondent's patent (the Sprague motor) there is but one field in perspective, and the armature is put in front of the field, and the whole is journaled on the driven axle. It is conceded that such differences in the conjunction of parts does not affect the quality of the machine. Its essential feature is stated by the inventor, at page 450, vol. 2, of complainant's testimony, in the following language:

'The device shown and described in complainant's patent embodies an electric motor rigidly mounted on a single railway car axle, which it is intended to drive, by means of axle boxes or bearings upon such driven axle, the whole forming a supplemental structure separate and distinct from the car frame or truck frame, with which it is only flexibly or nonrigidly connected.'

In another place (page 355) the inventor says:

'It should also be observed that it is nowhere stated in this patent that the object of the invention is to provide a suitable type of electric motor for an electric railway, or to provide a suitable form of gearing for an electric railway, or to provide a special and particular way of mounting an electric motor upon the single driven car axle, but that the object is, broadly, the provision of an arrangement by which the field and rotating armature (that is, both elements, the moving part and the stationary part) of an electric motor, and the gearing or transmitting devices (which includes all methods of mechanically transmitting motion from the driving shaft or armature spindle to the driven car axle), through which motion is communicated from the armature to the wheels of the car or vehicle, can be supported in such manner as to be independent of the body of the car or truck, with a view to permitting the latter to move freely without disturbing the relations of the motor and transmitting devices to the driven wheel or wheels, whereby the field and all other parts carried by the frame always occupy the same relative position to the wheels and armature, and are not affected or disturbed by the spring connection between the body of the car, or between the truck and the wheels, while at the same time the field is held from revolving with the axle by elastic restraint.'

Accepting this explanation of the plan and purpose of the invention there is little to distinguish it from other devices of earlier date. In the year 1880, at Menlo Park, N.J., Mr. Edison built and used, in an experimental way, a locomotive which was operated by electricity, and which embraced all the elements of complainant's patent. It was a locomotive, in the sense of a traction engine, distinguishable from a passenger car, which may be moved by power within or under it; but, in essential features, it was much the same as complainant's device. There was an electric motor geared to the driven...