Ross Winans, Plaintiff In Error v. the New York and Erie Railroad Company

Decision Date01 December 1858
Citation16 L.Ed. 68,62 U.S. 88,21 How. 88
PartiesROSS WINANS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE NEW YORK AND ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of New York.

It was an action brought by Winans against the railroad company for a violation of his patent for a new and useful improvement in the construction of cars or carriages intended to travel upon railroads.

In order that the reader may understand the nature of the improvement, the description of it, as given by Winans himself, is here inserted, because it is remarkably clear and well drawn up.

The following is the schedule referred to in the letters patent:

'To all whom it may concern: Be it known, that I, Ross Winans, civil engineer, of the city of Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, have invented a new and useful improvement in the construction of cars or carriages intended to travel upon railroads; which improvement is particularly adapted to passenger cars, as will more fully appear by an exposition of the difficulties heretofore experienced in the running of such cars at high velocities, which exposition I think it best to give in this specification, for the purpose of exemplifying the more clearly the object of my said improvement.

'In the construction of all railroads in this country which extend to any considerable distance, it has been found necessary to admit of lateral curvatures, the radius of which is sometimes but a few hundred feet; and it becomes important, therefore, so to construct the cars as to enable them to overcome the difficulties presented by such curvatures, and to adapt them for running with the least friction practicable upon all parts of the road; the friction to which I now allude is that which arises from the contact between the flanches of the wheels and the rails, which, when it occurs, causes a great loss of power, and a rapid destruction of, or injury to, both the wheel and the rail, and is otherwise injurious. The high velocities attained by the improvements made in locomotive engines, and which are not only sanctioned, but demanded, by public opinion, render it necessary that certain points of construction and arrangement, both in the roads and wheels, which were not viewed as important at former rates of travelling, should now receive special attention. The greater momentum of the load, and the intensity of the shocks and concussions, which are unavoidable, even under the best constructions, are among those circumstances which must not be neglected, as the liability to accident is thereby not only greatly increased, but the consequences to be apprehended much more serious. The passenger and other cars in general use upon railroads have four wheels, the axles of which are placed from three and a half to five feet apart; this distance being governed by the nature of the road upon which they run, and other considerations. When the cars are so constructed that the axles retain their parallelism, and are at a considerable distance apart, there is a necessary tendency in the flanches of the wheels to come into contact with the rails, especially on the curvatures of least radius, as the axles then vary more from the direction of the radii. From this consideration, when taken alone, it would appear to be best to place the axles as near to each other as possible, thus causing them to approach more nearly to the direction of the radii of the curves, and the planes of the wheels to conform to the line of the rails. There are, however, other circumstances which must not be overlooked in their constructions. I have already alluded to the increased force of the shocks from obstructions at high velocities—and, whatever care may be taken, there will be inequalities in the rails and wheels, which, though small, are numerous, and the perpetual operation of which produces effects which cannot be disregarded. The greater the distance between the axles, while the length of the body remains the same, the less is the influence of these shocks or concussions; and this has led, in many instances, to the placing them in passenger cars, at or near their extreme ends. Now, however, a compromise is most commonly made between the evils resulting from a considerable separation and a near approach, as, by the modes of construction now in use, one of the advantages must be sacrificed to the other. But it is not to the lateral curvatures and inequalities of the road alone that the foregoing remarks apply.

The incessant vibration felt in travelling over a railroad is mainly dependent upon the vertical motion of the cars in surmounting those numerous though minute obstructions which unavoidably exist. The nearer the axles are placed to each other, the greater is the effect of this motion upon the passengers, and the greater its power to derange the machinery and the road. It becomes very important, therefore, both as regards comfort, safety, and economy, to devise a mode of combining the advantages derived from placing the axles at a considerable distance apart, with those of allowing them to be situated near to each other. It has been attempted, and with some success, to correct the tendency of the flanches to come into contact with the rails, on curved and other parts of the road, by making the tread of the wheel conical; and if the travelling upon railroads was not required to be very rapid, this would so far prove an effectual corrective, as the two rails would find diameters upon the wheels which would correspond with the difference in length, the constant tendency to deviation being as constantly counteracted by this construction; but at high velocities, the momentum of the body in motion tends so powerfully to carry it in a right line, as to cause the wheel on the longer rail to ascend considerably above that part of the cone which corresponds therewith. The consequence of this is, a continued serpentine motion, principally, but not entirely, in a laterial direction; nor is this confined to the curved parts of the road, but it exists to an equal or greater extent upon those which are straight, especially when the axles are near to each other, the irregularities before spoken of constantly changing the direct course of the wheels, whilst there is no general curvature of the rails to counteract it. To avoid this effect, and the unpleasant motion and tendency to derangement consequent upon it, an additional motive is furnished for placing the axles at a considerable distance apart.

'The object of my invention is, among other things, to make such an adjustment or arrangement of the wheels and axles as shall cause the body of the car or carriage to pursue a more smooth, even, direct, and safe course, than it does as cars are ordinarily constructed, both over the curved and straight parts of the road, by the before-mentioned desideratum of combining the advantages of the near and distant coupling of the axles, and other means to be hereinafter described. For this purpose, I construct two bearing carriages, each with four wheels, which are to sustain the body of the passenger or other car by placing one of them at or near each end of it, in a way to be presently described. The two wheels on either side of these carriages are to be placed very near to each other; the spaces between their flanches need be no greater than is necessary to prevent their contact with each other. These wheels I connect together by means of a very strong spring—say double the usual strength employed for ordinary cars—the ends of which spring are bolted, or otherwise secured, to the upper sides of the boxes, which rest on the journals of the axles, the longer leaves of the springs being placed downwards, and surmounted by the shorter leaves. Having thus connected two pairs of wheels together, I unite them into a four-wheel bearing carriage, by means of their axles, and a bolster of the proper length extending across, between the two pairs of wheels, from the centre of one spring to that of the other, and securely fastened to the tops of them. This bolster must be of sufficient strength to bear a load upon its centre of four or five tons. Upon this first bolster I place another of equal strength, and connect the two together by a centre pin or bolt passing down through them, and thus allowing them to swivel or turn upon each other in the manner of the front bolster of a common road wagon. I prefer making these bolsters of wrought or cast iron; wood, however, may be used. I prepare each of the bearing carriages in precisely the same way. The body of the passenger or other car I make of double the ordinary length of those which run on four wheels, and capable of carrying double their load. This body I place so as to rest its whole weight upon the two upper bolsters of the two before-mentioned bearing carriages or running gear. I sometimes place these bolsters so far within the ends of the body of the car as to bring all the wheels under it, and in this case less strength is necessary in the car body than when the bolster is situated at its extreme ends. In some cases, however I place the bolster so far without the body of the car, at either end, as to allow the latter to hang down between the two sets of wheels or bearing carriages, and to run, if desired, within a foot of the rails.

'When this is done, a strong frame-work projects out from either end of the car or carriage body, and rests upon the upper bolsters of the two bearing carriages. This last arrangement, by which the body of the car is hung so low down, manifestly affords a great security to the passengers, exempting them in a great degree from those accidents to which they are liable when the load is raised. Several bodies may be connected, or rest on a common frame, and be supported on the bearing carriage, in a manner similar to that of a single body. When the bolsters of the bearing carriages are placed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
51 cases
  • Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • April 5, 1995
    ...v. Foote, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 218, 225, 14 L.Ed. 391 (1853); Winans v. Denmead, 56 U.S. (15 How.) at 338; Winans v. New York & Erie R.R. Co., 62 U.S. (21 How.) 88, 100, 16 L.Ed. 68 (1859); Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 812, 816, 19 L.Ed. 829 (1870); Heald v. Rice, 104 U.S. 737, 749,......
  • Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • August 8, 1995
    ...Turrill v. Michigan Southern & N. Indiana Railroad Co., 68 U.S. 491, 509-511, 17 L.Ed. 668 (1863); Winans v. New York & Erie R.R. Co., 62 U.S. (21 How.) 88, 100, 16 L.Ed. 68 (1859); Silsby v. Foote, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 218, 225, 14 L.Ed. 391 (1852); Hogg v. Emerson, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 437, 484,......
  • Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 20, 2015
    ...time," but they cannot be used to prove "the proper or legal construction of any instrument of writing." Winans v. New York & Erie R. Co., 21 How. 88, 100–101, 16 L.Ed. 68 (1859) ; see also Markman, supra, at 388, 116 S.Ct. 1384 (" ‘Where technical terms are used, or where the qualities of ......
  • Markman v. Westview Instruments
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 23, 1996
    ...first reveal actual practice, the practice revealed is of the judge construing the patent. See, e. g., Winans v. New York & Erie R. Co., 62 U.S. 88, 21 HOW 88, 100, 16 L. Ed. 68 (1859); Winans v. Denmead, 56 U.S. 330, 15 HOW 330, 338, 14 L. Ed. 717 (1854); Hogg v. Emerson, 47 U.S. 437, 6 HO......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Recent Developments in Environmental Law in Indiana
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 12, 2002
    ...of both court and jury, and perplexing, instead of elucidating, the questions involved in the issue. Winans v. N.Y. & Erie R.R. Co., 62 U.S. 88, 101 (1858). Courts have struggled for a long time on how to manage expert testimony at trial, and in perhaps no other legal area do controvers......
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Neck & Back Injuries Content
    • May 18, 2012
    ..., 195 Okla. 323, 157 P. 2d 465 (1945), § 10:710 Wilson v. Stilwill , 411 Mich. 587 (1981), § 8:650.1 Winans v. New York and Erie Railroad , 62 U.S. 88, 16 L. Ed. 68 (1859), § 8:650.1 Wrobleski v. de Lara , 708 A.2d 1086 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1998), affirmed at 1999 Md. Lexis 165 (April 16, 19......
  • Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.: the Supreme Court Narrows the Jury's Role in Patent Litigation - Elizabeth J. Norman
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 48-2, January 1997
    • Invalid date
    ...56 U.S. 330 (1853) (construing patent is question of law); Seymour v. McCormick, 60 U.S. 96 (1856) (same); Winans v. New York & Erie R.R., 62 U.S. 88 (1858) (construction of the patent is for the court); Brown v. Huger, 62 U.S. 305 (1858) (construction and resulting legal deductions within ......
  • HOW EXPERTS HAVE DOMINATED THE NEUROSCIENCE NARRATIVE IN CRIMINAL CASES FOR TWELVE DECADES: A WARNING FOR THE FUTURE.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 63 No. 4, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...of insanity absent sufficient expert evidence). (244.) See Overholser, supra note 242, at 284. (245.) Winans v. N.Y. & Erie R.R. Co., 62 U.S. 88, 101 (246.) See Grigsby v. Clear Lake Water Works Co., 40 Cal. 396, 405 (1870). (247.) Amitha Kalaichandran, We Must Rethink the Role of Medic......
  • Brief in Support of Motion to Compel Financial Records From DME
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Neck & Back Injuries Appendices Dealing With the Defense Team
    • May 18, 2023
    ...out that “opposite opinions of persons professing to be experts, may be obtained to any amount.” Winans v. New York and Erie Railroad, 62 U.S. 88, 101, 16 L. Ed. 68, 71 In an 1864 treatise on evidence, Judge Taylor emphasized this point by observing that: “Perhaps the testimony which least ......

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