Foglesong Mach. Co. v. J.D. Randall Co.
| Citation | 239 F. 893 |
| Decision Date | 16 February 1917 |
| Docket Number | 2986. |
| Parties | FOGLESONG MACH. CO. v. J. D. RANDALL CO. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
Border Bowman, of Springfield, Ohio, for appellant.
W. F Murray, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee.
Before DENISON, Circuit Judge, and EVANS and SATER, District Judges.
When this case was first before this court (203 F. 41, 121 C.C.A 377), the decree of the District Court perpetually enjoining the defendant from making, using, or vending the plaintiff's horse collar stuffing machine was affirmed. The advance which the plaintiff's assignors, as patentees, made over the prior art, and the very essence of their invention, was found to be a rotatable hopper free from central obstructions and caused to rotate by means of gear teeth or cogs on a ring which extends around the lower periphery of the hopper and rides upon the base member, the teeth meshing with those of a power-driven pinion at the rear of the hopper. The mechanism devised also makes permissible the use of tangled or machine-threshed straw. The case is again here on an appeal prosecuted by the plaintiff to reverse that court's refusal to hold the defendant in contempt for violation of the original decree.
In 1907 the plaintiff sold one of its machines to a manufacturing company at Grand Rapids, Mich. In consequence of a fire in that company's plant in the latter part of 1914, the machine was injured by the bending of its removable rotatable metal hopper and the breaking of the stuffing rod nose. The metal disc which presses downward the straw in the hopper had been misplaced or lost. Excepting the disc, the damaged hopper, and the stuffing rod nose, the machine remained in an operative condition, although some of the smaller and relatively inexpensive parts, which were subject to wear and required replacement at intervals, were more or less worn. Those parts were such as feed rods, feed pipes, bottom plate of the hopper, pinion wheels, cross-heads, studs, sprocket chains, and connecting rods. If, when worn, such parts are replaced, the life of a machine, the selling price of which is $1,800, ranges from 10 to 30 years. Owing to their necessary renewal, a number at least of such parts has been furnished, when a machine is sold by the plaintiff, with the completed machine, and customers, when having none of such parts, have purchased them when repairs were required. In the early part of 1915, the company purchased new machinery of the defendant and turned in its damaged machine in part payment therefor. The defendant, on receipt of the machine, supplied it with a new hopper, disc and stuffing rod nose, and, on account of more or less wear on minor parts of the mechanism, installed new feed rods feed pipes, a pinion wheel, a shaft connecting such wheel with beveled gear, a drive shaft, bottom plate, cross-head, and certain studs. The sprocket chains having been weakened to the extent resulting from two years' service, the defendant substituted for them new and heavier ones. This in turn required two new sprockets and two new sprocket wheels. A small friction collar was misplaced in defendant's shop, in lieu of which another similar collar was used. The machine was then sold, following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connecticut Telephone & Electric Co. v. Automotive E. Co.
...& Co., Inc., v. A. C. Layman Mach. Co. (D. C.) 227 F. 94, affirmed 230 F. 1021, 144 C. C. A. 286; Foglesong Mach. Co. v. J. D. Randall Co. (C. C. A. 6), 239 F. 893, 153 C. C. A. 21; Wilson v. Union Tool Co. (C. C. A. 9), 265 F. 669, affirmed 259 U. S. 107, 42 S. Ct. 427, 66 L. Ed. 848; Hess......
-
Electric Auto-Lite Co. v. P. & D. MFG. CO.
...A.) 77 F. 739; Slocomb & Co. v. A. C. Layman, etc., Co. (C. C. A.) 227 F. 94, affirmed (C. C. A.) 230 F. 1021; Foglesong, etc., Co. v. J. D. Randall Co. (C. C. A.) 239 F. 893; Pyle, etc., Co. v. Oliver, etc., Co. (C. C. A.) 281 F. 632; Eclipse Machine, etc., Co. v. J. H. Specialty, etc., Co......
-
Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Ready Auto Supply Co.
...in service, long or short as the case may be. He has the right to mend it, if need be, to continue that service. Foglesong Mach. Co. v. J. D. Randall Co. (C. C. A.) 239 F. 893; Pyle Nat. Bank v. Oliver Electric Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.) 281 F. 632; Shickle, Harrison & Howard I. Co. v. St. Louis C......
-
Standard Stoker Co. v. BERKLEY MACH. WORKS & F. CO., 233-235.
...over the new, there has not been a reconstruction but only repair. This view is not inconsistent with Foglesong Mach. Co. v. J. D. Randall Co., 239 F. 893 (C.C.A.6), relied upon by the appellant, or Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 213 U.S. 301, 29 S.Ct. 495, 53 L.Ed. 805, up......