McCormick v. Whitmer
Decision Date | 07 January 1889 |
Parties | MCCORMICK et al. v. WHITMER |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
R. H. Parkinson, for appellants.
E. Banning and T. A. Banning, for appellee.
This is a suit in equity, brought in the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Illinois, by Hugh Graham against Cyrus H. McCormick, Leander J. McCormick, and Robert H. McCormick, on the 8th of June, 1877, founded on the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 74,342, granted to Alvaro B. Graham, February 11, 1868, for an 'improvement in harvesters.' In the course of the suit, the defendant Cyrus H. McCormick having died, his executor, Cyrus H. McCormick, and his executrix, Nettie Fowler McCormick, were substituted as defendants in his stead. The defenses set up in the answer were want of novelty and non-infringement. After issue joined, proofs were taken on both sides, and on the 24th of April, 1882, the court made an interlocutory decree, holding the patent to be valid as regarded its first and second claims, decreeing that the defendants had infringed those claims, awarding a recovery of profits to the plaintiff from the 12th of August, 1870, the date of the assignment of the entire patent by the patentee to the plaintiff, and referring it to a master to take an account of profits and damages. On the 21st of July, 1884, the master made a report awarding a sum of money in favor of the plaintiff, to which both parties filed exceptions. On a hearing, the court sustained some of the defendants' exceptions, and overruled all others, and rendered a money decree in favor of the plaintiff. Both parties prayed appeals to this court, but the plaintiff did not perfect his appeal. Since the record was filed in this court the plaintiff has died, and his administrator, Peter Whitmer, has been substituted in his place as appellee.
Only claims 1 and 2 of the patent are involved. The specification states, among other things, that one object of the improvements which constitute the invention set forth in the patent is to obtain a greater capacity of movement in a floating finger-beam while retaining its connection with a gearing-carriage that is drawn forward by a stiff tongue; that, to that end, the first of the improvements of the patentee 'consists of the combination of the finger-beam with the gearing-carriage by means of a vibratable link extending crosswise to the line of draught, a draught-rod extending parallel with the line of draught, and two swivel-joints, the one for the vibratable link, and the other for the draught-rod, so that the finger-beam can rise and fall at either end, and rock forward or back ward, independently of the gearing-carriage, while maintaining its connection with it;' and that his 'next improvement consists of the combination of the finger-beam, gearing-carriage, vibratable link, draught-rod, and swivel-joints, with an arm connected with the finger-beam, to enable it to be rocked for the purpose of setting its guard-fingers at any desirable inclination to a horozontal line.' The specification further says:
There are 12 figures of drawings. The specification states that the machine is what, is commonly called a 'combined machine,' and is adapted to reaping and mowing; that, when used for the former purpose, it is arranged as represented in Figs. 1 to 6; that, when used for the latter purpose, certain of its parts are removed, as thereinafter stated, and a grass-divider is substituted for the grain-divider, at the outer end of the finger-beam; and that the gearing which imparts motion to the sickle and reel is mounted upon a carriage, A, which is supported by two running or ground weels, and is provided with a tongue to which the horses are hitched.
The parts of the specification which relate particularly to the subject-matter of claims 1 and 2 are as follows: , of which the joint-pin, a1, of the vibratable link, L, is the longitudinal axis, and its T-head, m1, the horizontal axis. This swivel-joint, therefore, while maintaining a firm connection with the draught-rod, gives free play for both the longitudinal and rocking movements of the finger-beam. Hence, when the machine is used for cutting grass, the said finger-beam may be left free, not only to rise and fall at either end, but also to rock or to be rocked forward and backward, so that the points of its guard-fingers incline towards or from a horizontal plane. In order that the finger-beam may be rocked by the conductor of the machine, the vibratable link, L, is fitted with an arm, l, whose upper end is connected by a rod with the lower end of a lever, P, that is pivoted to the gearing-carriage near its forward end. The upper end of this lever, P, extends within the reach of the driver, who sits upon the driver's seat, Q, so that he may rock the finger-beam by moving the said lever to and fro. This rocking lever, P, is fitted with a spring-bolt, whose end can engage in any one of a number of notches formed in a segment, R, which is attached to the gearing-carriage concentrically with the pivot of the rocking lever, so that the finger-beam may be fastened in the desired position by the engagement of the spring-bolt in the appropriate notch. The rocking lever is fitted with a lever-handle, p, and rod connecting with the spring-bolt, by which the spring-bolt may be withdrawn from the notched segment, and held disengaged therefrom during the movement of the lever. In order that the connection between the cutter on the finger-beam and the crank-shaft on the gearing-carriage may not obstruct the free rocking of the finger-beam, the connecting-rod, J, is connected with the cutter, I, by means of a swivel-joint, S, consisting (see Fig. 1b) of a head, s, that is pivoted to the cutter-stock, (by a shank that extends lengthwise therewith, and turns in an ear, s 1, secured to the end of the cutter-stock,) and of a cross-pivot, s 2, that passes through the said head, and through two ears formed upon the connecting-rod, J.'
There are 10 claims in the patent, claims 1 and 2 being as follows: '(1) The combination, as set forth, in a harvester, of the fingerbeam with the gearing-carriage, by means of the vibratable link, the draught-rod, and the two swivel-joints, M and M', so that the finger-beam may both rise and fall at either end, and rock forward and backward. (2) The combination, as set forth, in a harvester, of the finger-beam, gearing-carriage, vibratable link, draught-rod, swivel-joints, and arm, by which the rocking of the finger-beam is controlled.'
It will conduce to a solution of the questions involved in the case to give a history of the progress of the application for the patent through the patent-office, as gathered from certified copies of those proceedings found in the record. On the 4th of December, 1865, the patentee. Alvaro B. Graham, as assignor to himself, William B. Werden, and Cyrus A....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Richmond v. Atwood, 3.
... ... v ... Berkshire Nat. Bank, 135 U.S. 342-403, 10 S.Ct. 884; ... Burt v. Evory, 133 U.S. 349-359, 10 S.Ct. 394; ... McCormick v. Graham's Adm'r, 129 U.S. 1-19, ... 9 S.Ct. 213; Brewing Co. v. Gottfried, 128 U.S ... 158-170, 9 S.Ct. 83. The mandate sent to the circuit ... ...
-
Radio Corp of America v. United States
...matters. Telephone Cases, (Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Co.), 126 U.S. 1, 8 S.Ct. 778, 31 L.Ed. 863; McCormick v. Whitmer, 129 U.S. 1, 9 S.Ct. 213, 32 L.Ed. 593 (harvester); Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Corp., 276 U.S. 358, 48 S.Ct. 380, 72 L.Ed. 610 (improvement in vulcaniz......
-
Campbell Printing-Press & Manufacturing Co. v. Duplex Printing-Press Co.
... ... illustrated in the specification and drawings, and is also ... the same arrangement implied in claims 1, 2, and 7 ... McCormick v. Talcott, 20 How. 407. No skilled ... mechanic would regard the language of this claim as calling ... for any other arrangement of the type beds ... ...
-
Sackett v. Smith
... ... 664, 7 S.Ct. 421; Grier v. Wilt, 120 U.S. 412, 7 ... S.Ct. 718; Brewing Co. v. Gottfried, 128 U.W. 158, ... 170, 9 S.Ct. 83; McCormick v. Graham's ... Adm'r, 129 U.S. 1, 9 S.Ct. 213; Sargent v ... Burgess, 129 U.S. 19, 9Sup.Ct.Rep. 220; Peters v ... Manufacturing Co., 129 U.S ... ...