Barry v. Crane Bros. Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 November 1884 |
| Citation | 22 F. 396 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
| Parties | BARRY v. CRANE BROTHERS MANUF'G CO. |
E. J Hill, for complainant.
West & Bond, for defendant.
This bill seeks an injunction and accounting by reason of the alleged infringement of patent No. 91,201, issued to complainant, dated June 15, 1869, for an 'improvement in compound tools for reaming and squaring pipes. ' The defenses set up are: (1) That the patent is void for want of novelty; (2) an implied license to the defendant from the complainant to use the device in question. The tool described in this patent seems to be mainly useful for the purpose of boring or reaming out brass castings, thereby cutting away the scale and sizing the opening or orifice for the purpose of cutting screw-threads thereon, and also for squaring the ends of the casting, so as to make a tight joint between the brass and the iron pipes to be connected therewith.
The proof in the case shows that complainant, for some time prior to obtaining the patent in question, was in the employ of the defendant manufacturing company as foreman of their brass finishing department; that, while in such employment, he produced or made the tool in question, experimented with it made operative tools, which he put into use in his department of defendant's factory, and finally introduced into the business of defendant six or seven different sized tools, for the purpose of operating upon different sized brass castings. Complainant continued in defendant's employ for about four or five years after obtaining his patent. during all of which time the tools in question, under his supervision, were manufactured and put in use, with no claim on his part for compensation and no express agreement on the part of the defendant to pay him. There can be no doubt, from the proof that the complainant conducted his experiment and caused the tools now used by defendant to be manufactured at defendant's expense, and it would also seem the natural inference, from the proof, that complainant introduced the tools in question into use in defendant's business more as an adjunct to his own employment, as its foreman and department manager, than with the expectation, at that time, of receiving any royalties or other compensation for his patented device. There is no proof that defendant has, since complainant left its employ, made any new tools, but only that it has continued to use...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Circular Loom Co. v. Wilson
... ... 11; Young ... v. Winkley, 191 Mass. 570, 78 N.E. 377; Crane v ... Brooks, 189 Mass. 228, 75 N.E. 710; Bacon v ... Abbott, 137 ... courts. Dalzell v. Dueber Mfg. Co., 149 U.S. 315, 13 ... S.Ct. 886, 37 L.Ed. 749; Hapgood v. Hewitt, ... A. (N. S.) 1154; Whitney v ... Graves, Fed. Cas. No. 17,577; Barry v. Crane Bros ... Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 22 F. 396, 398. It was said by Gray, ... ...
-
D. M. Steward Mfg. Co. v. Steward
... ... 813.] ... and brought to a practical condition at the expense of his ... employer." Barry v. Manufacturing Co. (C. C.) ... 22 F. 396, 397. "The inventor and patentee having ... supervised ... ...
-
Wilson v. American Circular Loom Co.
...667; Gill v. United States, 160 U.S. 426, 435, 16 Sup.Ct. 322, 40 L.Ed. 480; McClurg v. Kingsland, 1 How. 202, 11 L.Ed. 102; Barry v. Crane Brothers (C.C.) 22 F. 396; Withington-Cooley Manufacturing Company v. 68 F. 500, 15 C.C.A. 531; American Tube Works v. Bridgewater Iron Company (C.C. 2......
- Glasgow v. Fritts