Brill v. St. Louis Car Co.
| Decision Date | 28 November 1898 |
| Docket Number | 1,049. |
| Parties | BRILL v. ST. LOUIS CAR CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
This was a suit by John A. Brill, the appellant, against the St Louis Car Company et al., the appellees, to restrain the infringement of letters patent No. 432,115, which as issued to John A. Brill on July 15, 1890, pursuant to an application filed on April 27, 1889. The invention covered by the patent relates to street-railway car trucks of the kind that are designed to carry electric motors, grips, or other analogous devices. In his specification the inventor stated that the object of his invention was , shown in Figs. 4 and 5, are connected together by side bars, d, shown in Fig. 4, to form the frame, D, of which the pedestals, C, are an integral or component part, and constitute the truck frame for the car. Between the top bar, c, of the pedestals, and the axle-boxes,, are interposed cushions of rubber, c 2, to provide a spring support for said pedestals on the axle-boxes. Through vertical openings in the pedestal ends, c', pass posts, F (see Fig. 4), which depend from the sills, a, of the car body. The lower ends of the posts, F, are suitably braced by a brace, H, shown in Fig. 4, which is bolted to the car sill, a, and by a truss-rod, I, which is also shown in Fig. 4. Surrounding the posts, F, are car springs, the lower ends of which rest on the frame, D, or on the ends of the pedestals, c'. The only claims of the patent that are involved in the present action are claims Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 6, which are as follows: (Image Omitted)
' The circuit court held that none of the af oresaid claims were infringed by the device which was in use by the defendants, and it accordingly dismissed the bill of complaint. The case is before this c ourt on appeal from such decree.
Francis Rawle, for appellant.
George H. Knight, for appellees.
Before S...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co.
... ... Talcott, 20 How. 402, 405, 15 L.Ed ... 930; Railway Co ... [106 F. 711] ... s. Sayles, 97 U.S. 554, 556, 24 L.Ed. 1053; Brill v. Car ... Co., 90 F. 666, 33 C.C.A. 213, 62 U.S.App. 276. But the ... great majority of patents falls between these two extremes ... They are ... ...
-
Johnson Furnace & Engineering Co. v. Western Furnace Co.
... ... v. Phoenix Co., 95 U.S. 274, 24 L.Ed. 344; ... Computing Scale Co. v. Automatic Scale Co., 204 U.S ... 609, 27 Sup.Ct. 307, 51 L.Ed. 645; Brill v. St. Louis Car ... Co., 90 F. 666, 33 C.C.A. 213; Westinghouse v ... Boyden, 170 U.S. 537-568, 18 Sup.Ct. 707, 42 L.Ed. 1136 ... [178 F. 825] ... ...
-
O'Brien-Worthen Co. v. Stempel
... ... STEMPEL. No. 3,908.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.December 11, 1913 [209 F. 848] ... Paul ... Bakewell, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant ... J. D ... Rippey, of St. Louis, Mo. (L. C. Kingsland, of St. Louis, ... Mo., and Omar E. Herminghausen, of Ft ... 544, 565, and the cases there cited; ... J. L. Owens Co. v. Twin City Separator Co., 168 F ... 259, 268, 93 C.C.A. 561, 570; Brill v. St. Louis Car ... Co., 90 F. 666, 668, 33 C.C.A. 213, 215; Hubbell v ... United States, 179 U.S. 77, 83, 84, 21 Sup.Ct. 24, 45 ... L.Ed. 95 ... ...
-
Power v. Mola Washing Mach. Co.
...to it in the Patent Office. I. T. S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co., 272 U. S. 429, 47 S. Ct. 136, 71 L. Ed. 335; Brill v. St. Louis Car Co., 90 F. 666 (C. C. A. 8); Hennebique Const. Co. v. Urban Const. Co. (C. C. A.) 182 F. 496 supra; Thacher v. Transit Const. Co. (D. C.) 228 F. 905; Dry ......