Estey v. Burdett

Decision Date07 January 1884
Citation27 L.Ed. 1058,3 S.Ct. 531,109 U.S. 633
PartiesESTEY and others v. BURDETT. 1
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

E. N. Dickerson and Wm. M. Evarts, for appellants.

Geo. Harding and E. J. Phelps, for appellee.

BLATCHFORD, J.

This is a suit in equity brought for the infringement of letters patent No. 87,241, granted February 23, 1869, to Riley Burdett, the plaintiff, for 17 years from August 24, 1868, for an improvement in reed organs.' The specification of the patent is in these words:

'Figure 1 is a perspective view of one of my reed celeste organs. Figure 2 is a diagram plan, showing the relative arrangement of the needs. Figure 3 is a vertical transverse section of my reed-board, etc. This invention consists—First, in the arrangement of the reed-board; second, in a method of tuning, by which a peculiar quality of tone is produced, and by which the

power of the instrument is greatly increased without an increased resistance in the action, and without an increase of power being necessary to operate the bellows. The advantages gained by my peculiar arrangement are, a greatly in creased power and variety of tone. This is effected by the use of an additional set of reeds, commencing at tenor, F, or thereabouts, and running upward through the scale of the instrument, and tuning the same in the peculiar manner hereinafter described. No other reed musical instrument containing the same number of reeds, so far as I know, has ever possessed so great a variety or pleasing quality of tone, while simplicity of construction, compactness of form, and ease of operation are other exellencies of this arrangement not found in others. I will now describe particularly the construction of that part of my instrument which forms the subject of this patent. The case, bellows, pedals, etc., may be, in general construction and arrangement, like those in common use, and, therefore, no special description is required. The foundation of the reed-board is also constructed in the usual manner, but the reed-board proper, in itself, differs from the ordinary reed-board in the following particulars, viz.: The main board, A, contains two sets of reeds running through the entire scale, the back set of which is marked a, and is tuned as a unison or diapason, while the front or octave set, marked b, is tuned an octave above the diapason. In the arrangement of these reeds, it will be seen that the lowest and longest reeds in the diapason and the octave sets are placed with their vibrating ends as near together as they can be, with room only for the tracker-pin which communicates the motion of the key to the valve beneath the reeds. But, as the reeds continually shorten as they advance upward in the scale, there is necessarily a vacant space left between the diapason set, a, and the octave set, b, which constantly enlarges itself, and has heretofore been regarded as useless. Within this space, commencing on tenor, F, and running upward through the scale, I have introduced a third set of reeds, L, which forms the distinguishing feature of this instrument. These are placed in the reed-board over the octave set, b, and run obliquely to the foundation board, G, as shown in Figure 3, the vibrating ends resting on the same base as the other sets of reeds, a, and b. These reeds are of the same size as the corresponding ones in the diapason, a, and are tuned either a trifle above or below the diapason, but only sufficiently so to produce a slightly waving and undulating quality or effect, without producing any discord. A few trials will enable any tuner of reed instruments to tune these reeds so as to realize the best effect. This method of tuning will, when this set of reeds, which I have named the Harmonic Celeste, is drawn and used in conection with the diapason, produce a most wonderfully pleasing and captivating effect, while the power and beauty of both sets of reeds are greatly augmented and enriched, in a manner which cannot be realized without being heard. Figure 2 shows a top view of the reed-board proper, wherein the location of the reeds is shown with reference to the divergence of the reeds of the diapason set, a, and the octave set, b, and also the space afforded for the introduction of the third set, L. Figure 3 exhibits a transverse section of my reed and foundation board, showing the arrangement of my reeds and the valve connections. In this figure, A is the reed-board, G is the foundation board, D is the valve opening, E is the valve, and FF are the throats over which the reeds are located and placed. The valve, E, is retained in its proper place by the pins, e, e, and spring, H, and is operated by the tracker-pin, I, which rests upon its upper surface, and passes upwards through the reed-board to the under surface of the key, n. the swell-boards, j and k, and stop-dampers, b aND M, ARE RAISED, WHENEVER DESIRED, BY the knee-stop, C, Figure 1, or by a hand draw-stop, or by some other convenient device. Another important advantage arising from the introduction of the Harmonic Celeste is that a greater power and variety are attained than can be by the use of any of the octave coupling arrangements now in use. These, while they augment the power, by drawing down octaves to the keys actually played, are objectionable, inasmuch as they offer more than double the resistance to the key, and are thus often exceedingly undesirable. In my instrument, no such objection can ever arise, as the pressure upon the keys is always the same, whether one or all the sets of reeds are used This is of prime importance to the performer, as the required exertion becomes involuntary, and not a matter of calculation, and thus the mind is not distracted from the proper feeling and expression of the music performed.'

The claims of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Eclipse Mach. Co. v. JH Specialty Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • April 7, 1933
    ...in support of its contention that the patent is invalid for lack of invention, as a mere double use, and to Estey v. Burdett, 109 U. S. 633, 640, 3 S. Ct. 531, 27 L. Ed. 1058; Preston v. Manard, 116 U. S. 661, 664, 6 S. Ct. 695, 29 L. Ed. 763; American Road-Machine Co. v. Pennock, 164 U. S.......
  • Handel Co. v. Jefferson Glass Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • May 1, 1920
    ... ... v. Gaylord, ... 140 U.S. 55, 11 Sup.Ct. 716, 35 L.Ed. 347; Am. Road M ... Co. v. Pennock, 164 U.S. 26, 17 Sup.Ct. 1, 41 L.Ed. 337; ... Estey v. Burdett, 109 U.S. 633, 3 Sup.Ct. 531, 27 ... L.Ed. 1058; Brown v. District of Columbia, 130 U.S ... 87, 9 Sup.Ct. 437, 32 L.Ed. 863; Shenfield ... ...
  • Leonard v. Lovell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • December 8, 1886
    ...Slawson v. Grand-street R. Co., 107 U.S. 649; S.C. 2 S.Ct. 663. Following these, and fortifying and solidifying the doctrine, are Estey v. Burdett, 109 U.S. 633; S.C. 3 S.Ct. 531; Double-pointed Tack Co. v. Two Rivers Manuf'g Co., 109 U.S. 117; S.C. 3 S.Ct. 105; King v. Gallun, 109 U.S. 99;......
  • Linde Air Products Co. v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • January 22, 1917
    ... ... result was known as obtainable by the particular adjustment, ... either to the prior inventor or to any mechanic using the ... device. Estey v. Burdett, 109 U.S. 633, 3 Sup.Ct ... 531, 27 L.Ed. 1058; Pomace Holder Co. v. Ferguson, ... 119 U.S. 335, 7 Sup.Ct. 382, 30 L.Ed. 406; ... ...
  • 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