Aron v. Manhattan Ry Co

Decision Date11 November 1889
Citation10 S.Ct. 24,33 L.Ed. 272,132 U.S. 84
PartiesARON v. MANHATTAN RY. CO. 1
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

M. B. Philipp, for appellant.

Edwin H. Brown and Julien T. Davies, for appellee.

BLATCHFORD, J.

This is a suit in equity, brought by Joseph Aron against the Manhattan Railway Company, in the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York, to recover for the infringement of letters patent No. 288,494, granted to the plaintiff, as the assignee of William W. Rosenfield, the inventor, November 13, 1883, for an 'improvement in railway car gates,' the application for the patent having been filed April 3, 1883. The circuit court, held by Judge WALLACE, dismissed the bill, and the plaintiff has appealed. The specification of the patent says: 'In many classes of railway cars, and particularly those used upon the elevated and other city railways, it has been found necessary, in order to prevent passengers from falling from the train, and also to prevent persons from attempting to get off or on a car while in motion, to provide the entrances to the car platforms with gates, by which they can be closed except at the proper times. These gates are usually in charge of a guard or attendant, whose duty it is to close the gates before the train commences to move, and to open them only after the train has come to a full stop. As there is usually but one guard or attendant stationed between each two adjoining cars, it follows that to open or close both gates he must pass around from one to the other of the adjoining platforms. This passing from one platform to the other, besides being a source of annoyance to the guard, occasions some delay, which is very annoying to the passengers particu- larly at times when a large number are required to get off or on a car in a very short time. It is the object of the present invention, among other things, to provide means by which the guard or attendant can, without changing his position, open or close both gates simultaneously, and with the least possible delay. To that end, one feature of the invention consists in providing the gates with connections so arranged that any two adjoining gates can be simultaneously opened or closed by the guard while standing in the passage-way leading from one of the cars to the other.' The drawings annexed to the patent represent two ordinary railway cars, with platforms adjoining each other, and the usual entrances from the station platform, and gates of the ordinary construction for closing such entrances. The gates are hinged in the usual manner to posts which rise from the corners of the platforms, and close against the usual jambs which project from the sides of the cars. The platforms are provided with the usual guard-railings, extending inward from the above-mentioned posts to similar posts which are located a sufficient distance apart to leave a passage-way from one car to the other. When the gates are thus arranged, it is necessary, in order to close or open both gates, for the guard to pass from one platform around the inner post to the opposite platform, thus causing some delay in opening and closing one of the gates, adding to the labor of the guard, and causing annoyance to the passengers. In order to avoid this, each of the gates is provided, at a suitable distance from its hinge, with a curved lever, which extends rearward, and terminates a short distance outside of the guard-railing. This lever in connected by a link, e, with a rod, f, which slides in or on a suitable bearing secured to the guard-railing, and is provided at its inner end with a handle by which it can be operated. The guard or attendant, while standing in the passage-way, can, by grasping the two handles, and pushing or pulling the rods, f, open or close both gates simultaneously, and without loss of time. The specification states that the rods, f, will preferably be provided with some form of locking mechanism by which the gates can be fastened in their opened or closed positions; and that such locking may be accomplished by having the handles pivoted to the rods, f, as shown, and provided with extensions which can be turned so as to extend in front of the inner posts, and hold the gates closed, or so as to lie in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
61 cases
  • Donner v. Sheer Pharmacal Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 29 de abril de 1933
    ...Ct. 717, 724, 28 L. Ed. 901. See Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U. S. 192, 200, 2 S. Ct. 225, 27 L. Ed. 438; Aron v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 132 U. S. 84, 90, 10 S. Ct. 24, 33 L. Ed. 272; Werk v. Parker, 249 U. S. 130, 133, 39 S. Ct. 197, 63 L. Ed. 514; Concrete Appliances Co. v. Gomery, 269 U. S.......
  • Carson v. American Smelting & Refining Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • 21 de novembro de 1923
    ... ... 466, 22 L.Ed ... 116; Los Alamitos v. Carroll, 173 F. 280, 97 C.C.A ... 446; Lalance v. Habermann (C.C.) 53 F. 378; ... Manhattan v. Helios (C.C.) 135 F. 785-802; ... National Co. v. Brake Beam, 106 F. 693, 45 C.C.A ... 544; O'Rourke v. McMullin, 160 F. 933, 88 C.C.A ... 482; Ex parte Reid, ... 15 O.G. 882; Ex parte McDougall, 18 O.G. 130 ... Cases ... cited by defendant and examined by the court: Aron v ... Manhattan Ry. Co., 132 U.S. 84, 90, 10 Sup.Ct. 24, 33 ... L.Ed. 272; Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U.S. 192, 2 ... Sup.Ct. 225, 27 L.Ed ... ...
  • Brown v. Louisiana & Missouri River Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 2 de abril de 1914
  • Weir Frog Co. v. Porter
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 16 de maio de 1913
    ... ... v. Brady), operating jail doors from a distance (Fond du Lac ... v. May), a safety gate for street car platforms (Aron v ... Railway), a soft metal switch-plate holder (Johnson v ... Toledo)-- each was a thing accomplished which had not been ... done before. But ... patentable must itself be unanticipated'; or, as said in ... the Platform Gate Case (Aron v. Manhattan Ry. Co.), ... 132 U.S. 84, 10 Sup.Ct. 24, 33 L.Ed. 272, 'his right to a ... patent' must depend upon the novelty of the means ... employed 'and ... ...
  • 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