Lovejoy v. Shultz

Decision Date07 May 1928
Docket NumberNo. 2037.,2037.
Citation1928 CD 180,58 App. DC 190,26 F.2d 562
PartiesLOVEJOY v. SHULTZ.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

F. A. Tennant, of Boston, Mass., and C. E. Riordon, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

J. S. Powers, of Buffalo, N. Y., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

MARTIN, Chief Justice.

Shultz is the senior party. Lovejoy, the junior party, denies that Shultz is entitled to make the counts of the interference, claiming that the Shultz structure, as disclosed in the application, is inoperative and utterly lacking in usefulness.

The issue is stated in four counts, of which count 1 is illustrative, reading as follows, to wit:

"1. A shock absorber adapted to be arranged between two relatively movable members, comprising a cylinder adapted to be connected with one of said members, a piston arranged in said cylinder and adapted to be connected with the other member, and a liquid reservoir, said piston having a port and said cylinder having a port leading to said reservoir, said ports being adapted to register and place said cylinder and reservoir in communication with each other during the central part of the stroke of said piston in the cylinder but to cut off communication through these ports between the cylinder and reservoir when the piston is at either end of its stroke."

It thus appears that the invention relates to an improvement in automobile shock absorbers of the hydraulic reciprocating piston type. Such a shock absorber consists of a casing containing a cylinder and a fluid reservoir, separated from one another by a partition, but intercommunicating at the top. A piston with a downward skirt moves in the cylinder, and its action is in some measure regulated or controlled by two valve-equipped ports located between the cylinder and the fluid reservoir. One of the ports freely permits the flow of the fluid from the reservoir into the cylinder, but automatically prevents a reverse flow of the fluid; whereas, the other, by means of a spring-regulated valve, permits the fluid to flow from the cylinder to the reservoir. The piston is attached by a projecting arm to the axle of the car, and the casing is attached to the car's body; accordingly the regulation of the relative movements of the piston and casing serves to absorb the shocks produced by sharp depressions or elevations in the roadway.

Shultz sought to improve upon this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Waern v. Carter
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 7 Mayo 1928

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