Ford v. Bancroft
| Citation | 98 F. 309 |
| Decision Date | 10 October 1899 |
| Docket Number | 251. |
| Parties | FORD et al. v. BANCROFT et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
William D. Baldwin and Loyd B. Wight, for appellants.
Frederick P. Fish and Guy Cunningham, for appellees.
Before COLT, Circuit Judge, and WEBB and ALDRICH, District Judges.
This appeal relates to patent No. 401,050, issued to Henry B Morris April 9, 1889, for a 'machine for inserting diagonal strips in woven cane work. ' The invention, in the words of the patentee, 'is for a machine for automatically inserting diagonal threads or strips in a prepared foundation mat. ' The foundation mat of woven cane work, and the completed fabric after the insertion of the diagonal strip, are illustrated in the following figures:
(Image Omitted)
The Morris patent, as appears from the specification, covers a complete automatic machine, composed of several groups of instrumentalities, namely, 'improved means for inserting diagonal threads into a woven fabric, improved means for feeding the fabric to the mechanism for inserting the diagonal threads, and improved devices for severing the threads at proper length.' the chief feature of the Morris invention relates to the dies which separate the strands of the foundation fabric, and open a passage through which a diagonal strand may be passed. The inventor says:
The patent was granted April 9, 1889. Morris conceived the invention in the winter of 1886-87, and between that time and the date of the patent he made several sets of separators for the purpose of experiment. Some time after the patent was issued, he constructed a machine, which proved to be structurally weak, and was abandoned. A second machine was completed in the winter of 1891-92. On March 17, 1892, this machine was operated in the presence of two of the complainants, Ford and Johnson, and of Henry G. Dunlap, at Geneva, N.Y. Morris and his son, Edmund, testify that the machine worked fairly well. Dunlap testifies that he told Ford that it 'would never do the work practically,' but 'that it might be improved and worked down fine enough to make the work all right. ' The complainants Ford and Johnson are not called as witnesses, and we have not the benefit of their evidence as to the operativeness of this machine. Two days after this examination of the machine, on March 17, 1892, the complainants entered into a contract with the Morris Weaving Company, to whom the patent was issued as assignee of Morris, for the purchase of the patent; and about the same time Morris and his son entered into the employment of the complainants, and have since continued in their employment. This contract contained the following provision:
'It is further understood and agreed that the party of the second part shall pay to the party of the first part the sum of $5,000 upon the execution and delivery of these presents, and the balance of the twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) as follows: That when in the opinion of H. B. Morris or Edmund Morris, in behalf of the party of the first part, and of Henry G. Dunlap, or some other expert appointed by the party of the second part, the machine has been developed and perfected under the letters patent aforesaid so as to be commercially useful, that the parties of the second part shall pay to the party of the first part fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) cash: * * * provided that, if the experts of the two parties hereto shall not be able to agree as to when said machine has been so perfected, the, upon the demand of the experts of either party, a third party shall be chosen by the experts of both parties, who shall be a mechanical expert, and both parties hereto agree to abide by the decision of the majority of the three arbitrators thus appointed as to whether the machine has been so perfected at that time as to be commercially useful; and the parties of the second part agree to use all reasonable diligence in perfecting the machinery described and claimed under the said letters patent.'
This machine was taken from Geneva to Chicago, and then to Michigan City, where the complainants carry on their business of manufacturing cane goods. The machine was then taken apart, and an attempt was made to build a third machine. This last machine was never completed. The separators used in the second machine and in the last partially constructed machine were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landry Mfg. Co. v. CP Rockwell, Inc., 2460.
...S. 286, 15 S. Ct. 118, 39 L. Ed. 153; Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co., 170 U. S. 537, 18 S. Ct. 707, 42 L. Ed. 1136; Ford v. Bancroft (C. C. A.) 98 F. 309; Cushman Paper-Box Mach. Co. v. Goddard (C. C.) 90 F. 727; Kellogg Switchboard & Supply Co. v. Dean (C. C. A.) 182 F. 991; United......
-
Bradford v. Belknap Motor Co.
...machines, stated in Ford v. Bancroft, decided in this circuit and reported in 85 F. 457, 461, and in the same case on appeal (39 C.C.A. 91, 98 F. 309, 312, 313), we must proceed great caution, and avoid giving the complainant the benefit of anything beyond what his invention and patent clea......
-
Measuregraph Co. v. Grand Rapids Show Case Co.
...and if it appear that a machine embodying it would fail to accomplish the intended result there can be no infringement. Ford v. Bancroft (C. C. A.) 98 F. 309. But we pass the application of these principles to the facts here solely because of the presumption which attaches to the issuance o......
-
Ironclad Mfg. Co. v. Dairymen's Mfg. Co.
... ... results Haigh was aiming at. Hence this court cannot find ... that Haigh was strictly a 'pioneer.' See Ford v ... Bancroft, 98 F. 309, 312, 39 C.C.A. 91, 95: ... 'Where ... a patent represents a marked advance in the art (for ... example, ... ...