Starling v. Weir Plow Co.

• Decision Date: 20 August 1891
• Citation: 49 F. 637
• Parties: STARLING v. WEIR PLOW CO. et al. [1]
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

49 F. 637

STARLING v. WEIR PLOW CO. et al. ^[1]

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Illinois, Southern Division.

August 20, 1891

W. H Wells, for complainant.

Bond Adams & Pickard, for defendants.

BLODGETT District Judge.

This is a suit charging the defendant with infringement of patent No 154,293, granted August 18, 1874, to complainant, for an 'improvement in sulky plows,' and praying an injunction and accounting. The plow described in the specifications and drawings of this patent consists of a two-wheel sulky plow, with an arched axle, or an axle bent downward towards each end; the spindle for the right-hand wheel being a horizontal projection from the portion so bent downward. Pivoted upon the vertical part of the axle, just above the angle from which the right-hand wheel spindle projects, is what the patentee calls a 'crank-bar,' which extends backward and transversely across, nearly from hub to hub, and is also pivoted to the lower end of the vertical part of the axle, near the spindle of the left-hand wheel; and the plow-beam is attached to the transverse part of this crank-bar, near the middle of the bar, by a jointed coupling, so that the plow-beam can rock upon its attachment to the crank-bar, and the forward end of the beam be raised and lowered by rocking this crank-bar. A lever rigidly connected with this crank or bail extends upward to the driver's seat, so that by the movement of this lever by the driver the crank-bar may be rocked and the plow raised or lowered. There are other features of the plow, not now in controversy, which it is not necessary, for the purposes of this case, to describe.

Infringement is charged only as to the first claim, which is:

'(1) The crank-bar, K, combined with the plow-beam, N, lever, L, and axle, A, as and for the purpose set forth, so that the horses are made to raise the plow out of the ground.'

The defenses relied upon are: (1) That the patent is void for want of novelty; (2) that defendants do not infringe.

The material question in the case, in my judgment, is as to the patentable novelty of the device, in the light of the state of the art as disclosed in the proof. This patent was before the United States circuit court for the district of Minnesota in Starling v. St. Paul Plow-Works, 29 F. 790, and 32 F. 290, and there sustained. That case was a suit at law brought by complainant, as owner of this patent, upon a contract or license given by him to the St. Paul Plow-Works by which the licensee was permitted to manufacture and sell plows made under this patent, within certain territory, for a royalty of $2.50 per plow. After the defendant in that case had made and sold 35 or 40 plows under the license, notice was given to the patentee that the plows were unsatisfactory; that many of them had been returned as unserviceable; and that the licensee renounced the license, and would thereafter manufacture plows of its own design. After this notice and renunciation of the license, the licensee made about 1,300 plows after what it called its own design, on which it refused to pay the royalty called for by the license, whereupon the patentee brought suit to recover his royalty or license fee, claiming that the plow designed and made by the licensee after the renunciation of the license contained the features covered by the patent. The question properly in issue in that case was whether the plows made by the defendant, on which it refused to pay royalty, embodied the features, or any of them, covered by the claims of the patent. The court held, properly, as I think, that as defendant had, by its answer in the case, denied the novelty of the device covered by the patent, and plaintiff had not replied an estoppel under the license, proof upon the question of novelty was admissible; and, under this ruling, proof of the issue of several prior patents was heard and considered. The plaintiff's patent has three claims, covering different features of the device; and it is obvious that, if the plows made by the defendant in the Minnesota case contained features covered by any of these claims, then it was liable for a license fee. This case differs, then, from the Minnesota case, in two essential particulars: First, only one...