American Safety Table Co. v. Singer Sewing Mach. Co., 6459.
Decision Date | 14 April 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 6459.,6459. |
Citation | 95 F.2d 543 |
Parties | AMERICAN SAFETY TABLE CO. v. SINGER SEWING MACH. CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Augustus B. Stoughton and E. S. W. Farnum, Jr., both of Philadelphia, Pa. (Thomas G. Haight, of Jersey City, N. J., Samuel E. Darby, Jr., of New York City, Morgan S. Kaufman, of Scranton, Pa., Edwin Levisohn, of New York City and Harry Cohen, of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for appellant.
C. W. Frontz, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Gifford, Scull & Burgess, by George F. Scull and H. H. Hamilton, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, District Judge.
This case concerns the instantaneous transfer of the speed power of a swiftly revolving shaft to an at-rest machine, without abrasion or wrecking of such at-rest machine. This instantaneous transmission and reception of power may best be appreciated if some future invention — as no doubt will eventually be done — should make it possible, by the application of brakes, to instantaneously stop an automobile traveling at the rate of say seventy miles an hour. Of course, the two problems involve different facts, forces, and agencies, but in the instantaneous absorption of shock forces the two situations are mechanically analogous. It will therefore be seen that in this patent case we face a major mechanical problem.
In practice a large row of sewing machines got their power from the swift rotating shaft by means of an exposed belt connection controlled by the operator. Such operators, the proofs R 106 show, if the women were not alert, "would have their fingers caught in the transmission, their hair torn or their dresses torn." As lint from sewing was present, this made the conditions unsanitary. Such method, which is styled the indirect drive, consisted of the main revolving shaft extending along a row of sewing machines. The latter were each provided with a counter shaft with a clutch device which was belted to the driving shaft and also to each sewing machine by a second belt. In addition to its danger incidents, the device was hampered by another incident, namely, the slow stopping of its sewing. This objection is thus correctly summarized in the patentee's brief:
That these grave dangers were recognized in the art is evidenced in the statement of Herbert Corrall in his American patent No. 1,147,377, granted July 20, 1915, to his assignee, the defendant, Singer Sewing Machine Company, a corporation of New Jersey, for a sewing machine driving device:
In that connection we note that the avowed, and indeed sole stated, purpose of Corrall was to protect the operator from danger by shielding the operating parts.
The Corrall device, although the patent was applied for and was owned by the Singer Company, the defendant, and though that company had ample resources, was never placed on the American market. In the eighteen years succeeding its application, the Singer Company never used it, but continued to use the old indirect method and means. In that regard we have not overlooked the fact that the Corrall device went into extensive use in England, where it was manufactured by an affiliated British Company of which Corrall, the inventor, was a director. There is no testimony that the machine as there made was capable of instantaneous stoppage, and there is convincing testimony that when one sewing machine got out of order, the main shaft and all the sewing machines operating from that main shaft had to be stopped. Thus the witness Jones, who was a manufacturer of machine parts and for fifteen years familiar with the Corrall machines since he was called on to repair, testified:
As to the noninstantaneous stoppage of the machine, his testimony was:
He testified there were some fourteen thousand Corrall machines in use in England, but that "all of the troubles encountered in connection with the Corrall transmitter were in the screw mechanism (the cam) and the braking, due to not stopping at the correct time it should." We find no testimony in the record controverting the above statement that the machine did not stop at the correct time it should. Later on we comment on this basic feature of instantaneous stopping and how and by whom this all-important objection was overcome. The witness testified that he knew of two factories — naming them — where the Corrall device was thrown out and the companies went back to the old indirect drive method. Lewis, a dealer in secondhand machines, testified he found them no success whatever; that there is no market for secondhand Corrall machines; that they required "a big staff of maintenance men." He testified that except in what are called "cooperative factories," which have numbers of mechanics at call, the Corrall tables have gone out of use for ten years. He referred to another large concern "that used to use Corrall tables, but they threw them on the scrap heap and went back to the indirect drive, using probably about four thousand sewing machines all told." He testified further:
From the above — and we find no testimony to the contrary — we are constrained to hold that the Corrall machine did not satisfy the British market; that it did not effect instantaneous stoppage, and inferentially that for these reasons the Singer Company, the patentee defendant, though amply able, did not attempt to put it on the American market; and that it had no effect on the art, and the Singer Company itself, as we have seen, for eighteen years after its grant, continued to follow the indirect system device.
Continuing the status of the art, it appears that Lewis Frankel had one of the largest men's clothing factories in the country and was using therein "the old belt style tables, belt-driven Singer tables," such as had been in use for twenty to twenty-five years.
We now turn to the proofs showing the attempts to improve the art. They show that Frankel started in 1912 a ten years expensive, futile and unsuccessful effort to do so. His superintendent, Axilrod, told him of the Jones direct drive, an English direct drive. He placed six of them in his factory and in a week they collapsed. He then directed Axilrod to go ahead, irrespective of cost, and devise a direct drive device. This Axilrod did, with the result he obtained patent No. 1,188,385 on June 27, 1916. As showing the desire of the art to improve and its failure to do so, the proof is: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
De Cew v. Union Bag & Paper Corporation
...George A. Breon & Co., 8 Cir., 85 F.2d 166, certiorari denied 299 U.S. 598, 57 S.Ct. 191, 81 L. Ed. 441; American Safety Table Co. v. Singer Sewing Machine Co., 3 Cir., 95 F. 2d 543, certiorari denied 305 U.S. 622, 59 S.Ct. 82, 83 L.Ed. 397; Southern Phosphate Corp. v. Phosphate Recovery Co......
-
Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co.
...Refining Company v. Universal Oil Products Company, June 26, 1935, 78 F.2d 991, and also No. 6459, American Safety Table Company v. Singer Sewing Machine Company, March 9, 1938, 95 F.2d 543. It is asserted that these judgments are invalid and should be vacated because in each case there was......
-
Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Prods. Co.
...of Judge Davis and his accomplice, not only in the Root case but also in another case in that court. American Safety Table Co. v. Singer Sewing Machine Co., 3 Cir., 95 F.2d 543. Immediately it is apparent that the charge of corruption against Judge Davis was not limited to the Root case, bu......
-
Flakice Corporation v. LIQUID FREEZE CORPORATION
...280 U.S. 400, 50 S.Ct. 185, 74 L.Ed. 511; Simons v. Davidson Brick Co., 9 Cir., 1939, 106 F.2d 518; American Safety Table Co. v. Singer Sewing Machine Co., 3 Cir., 1938, 95 F.2d 543. 9 Only prior use for more than one year is now required. 35 U.S.C.A. § 102(b). 10 Great Atlantic & Pacific T......