Bragg v. Fitch

Decision Date02 May 1887
Citation7 S.Ct. 978,121 U.S. 478,30 L.Ed. 1008
PartiesBRAGG and another, Copartners, etc., v. FITCH and another, Copartners, etc. 1
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

[

Wm. E. Simonds, for appellants.

J. S. Beach and John K. Beach, for appellees.

BRADLEY, J.

This is a suit on a patent granted to Charles B. Bristol, May 16, 1865, for an improvement in harness hooks or snaps; the complainants being assignees of the patent. These hooks are usually attached to the end of a strap or chain for the purpose of fastening it to a ring or staple, as in the case of a tie-strap for fastening a horse to a post. The small hook by which a watch chain is fastened to the ring or stem of the watch is an example. It has a movable part called the tongue, which is connected to the shank of the hook by a pivot, and is kept in place against the end of the hook by the pressure of a spring acting between the shank and the tongue. The tongue may be pressed in ward, so as to admit the ring or staple, and is thrust back to its place by the action of the spring. In some form or other, the implement has long been in use. The patent in question relates to the mode of arranging the spring in the tongue and of attaching both to the shank of the hook. The complainants' expert says: 'The invention shown and described in the patent of Bristol is an improvement in that class of snap-hooks in which the tongue is pivoted in a recess between two cheeks in the shank. In this recess a coil spring is arranged around the pivot so that the two ends of the spring bear, one upon the tongue, and the other upon the body of the hook, tending to press the tongue up against the end of the hook, but yet permit the tongue to be depressed to open the hook. In this class of hooks prior to Bristol the tongue was cast with a recess upon its under side to form two cheeks corresponding to the cheeks in the shank of the hook. The cheeks on the tongue were drilled corresponding to the hole through the cheeks in the shank, so that a rivet could be inserted through the sides of the shank and both sides of the tongue to form the pivot on which h e tongue would turn. The coil of the spring was arranged around the pivot, the two ends bearing, one upon the shank, and one upon the hook, as before described.' The principle of this arrangement was exhibited in many different forms. Sometimes the spring merely passed around the pivot without any coil; sometimes a straight spring was so secured to the one part, and made to press against the other, as to effect the same object. One would hardly suppose that a patentable invention could have been made in relation to this little device. But many patents have been, and probably more will be, granted. The Bristol patent, now sued on, is one of the latest in the series which has been brought to our attention.

The particular contrivance which is claimed as an invention in this patent may be described as follows: Instead of having a separate pivot or pin, to pass through the cheeks or ears of the hook and tongue for the purpose of connecting them together and holding the coil of the spring, a small projection or fulcrum, to answer the purpose of a pivot, is cast as a part of one of the cheeks of the hook, on its inner side, and the cheeks (being made of malleable cast-iron) are spread further apart, and the recess between them is thus wider than they are intended to be when the article is finished. The coil of the spring is placed on the projecting fulcrum. The tongue is made with a recess as usual, but one side of this recess is left open, the other side having the ordinary cheek perforated with a hole to admit the fulcrum pivot. The tongue, thus constructed, is placed in the recess of the hook, and slipped over the spring and pivot; and then, by means of a vice or press, the outside cheeks of the hook are squeezed together until the fulcrum pivot passes through the hole in the cheek of the tongue, and comes in contact with the opposite cheek of the hook. The patentee, after having described the construction of the several parts, explains the mode of putting them together as follows: 'Having made the parts as before described, I place the spiral spring, Fig. 4, on the projection or pin, n, Fig. 2, and slip the tongue, Fig. 3, onto the projection or fulcrum pin, n, so that the spring, Fig. 4, will rest in and be inclosed by the recess,R, WITH THE TWO TANGENTIAL PARTS, H AND I, POINTING TOWARDS THE HOOK, A. i then place the article in a proper vice or press,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 28, 1901
    ... ... Co. v. Aultman, Miller & Co ... (C.C.) 58 F. 773; Newton v. Manufacturing Co., ... 119 U.S. 373, 7 Sup.Ct. 369, 30 L.Ed. 442; Bragg v ... Fitch, 121 U.S. 478, 7 Sup.Ct ... [106 F. 715] ... 978, 30 ... L.Ed. 1008; Dryfoos v. Wiese, 124 U.S. 32, 8 Sup.Ct ... ...
  • Akro Agate Co. v. Master Marble Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia
    • January 16, 1937
    ...White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47, 7 S.Ct. 72, 30 L.Ed. 303; Sutter v. Robinson, 119 U.S. 530, 7 S.Ct. 376, 30 L.Ed. 492; Bragg v. Fitch, 121 U.S. 478, 7 S.Ct. 978, 30 L.Ed. 1008; Snow v. Lake Shore & M. S. Railway Co., 121 U.S. 617, 7 S.Ct. 1343, 30 L.Ed. 1004. I. That plaintiff cannot maintain......
  • United States Axle Lubricator Co. v. Wurster
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • April 5, 1889
    ... ... Iron Works, 19 F. 258 ... Philipp, ... Phelps & Hovey, for defendant, cited: ... McCormick ... v. Talcott, 20 How. 405; Bragg v. Fitch, 121 ... U.S. 478-483, 7 S.Ct. 978; Railway Co. v. Sayles, 97 ... U.S. 554; Duff v. Pump Co., 107 U.S. 636, 2 S.Ct ... 487; Blake v. San ... ...
  • Bilque v. Merry Bros. Brick & Tile Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • July 23, 1932
    ...639, 2 S. Ct. 487 27 L. Ed. 517; Newton v. Furst & Bradley Mfg. Co., 119 U. S. 373, 7 S. Ct. 369 30 L. Ed. 442; Bragg v. Fitch, 121 U. S. 478, 7 S. Ct. 978 30 L. Ed. 1008; Crawford v. Heysinger, 123 U. S. 589, 8 S. Ct. 399 31 L. Ed. 269; Dryfoos v. Niese, 124 U. S. 32, 8 S. Ct. 354 31 L. Ed......
  • 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