Aron v. Manhattan Railway Co.

132 U.S. 84, 10 S. Ct. 24, 33 L. Ed. 272, 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1843
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 11, 1889
Docket43
StatusPublished
Cited by70 cases

This text of 132 U.S. 84 (Aron v. Manhattan Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Aron v. Manhattan Railway Co., 132 U.S. 84, 10 S. Ct. 24, 33 L. Ed. 272, 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1843 (1889).

Opinion

Me. Justice Blatcheord

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit in equity, brought by Joseph Aron against the Manhattan Bailway Company, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, 'to recover for the infringement of letters patent No. 288,494, granted to the plaintiff, as the assignee of William W. Rosenfield, the inventor, November 13, 1883, for an “ improvement in railway car gates,” the application for the patent having been filed April 3, 1883. The Circuit- Court, held by Judge Wallace, dismissed the bill, and the plaintiff has appealed.

The specification of the patent says: “ in many classes of railway cars, and particularly those used upon the elevated and other city railways, it has been found necessary, in order to prevent passengers from falling from the train, and also to prevent persons from attempting to get off or on a car while in motion, to p'rovide the entrances to the car-platforms with gates, by which they can be closed except at the proper times. These gates are usually in charge of a guard or attendant, whose duty it is to close the gates before the train commences to move, and to open them only after the train has come to a full stop. As there is usually but one guard or attendant stationed between each two adjoining cars, it follows that to open or close both gates he must pass around from one to the other of the adjoining platforms. This -passing from one platform to the other, besides being, a source of annoyance to the guard, occasions some delay, which is Very annoying to the passengers, particu *86 larly at times when a large number are required to get off or on a car in a very short time. It is the object of the present invention, among other things, to provide means by which the guard or attendant can, without changing his position, open or close both gates simultaneously and with the least possible delay. To that end one feature of the invention consists in providing the gates with connections so arranged that any two adjoining gates can be simultaneously opened or closed by the guard while standing in the passage-way leading from one of the cars to the other.”

The drawings annexed to the patent represent two ordinary railway cars, with platforms adjoining each other, and the usual entrances from the station platform, and gates of the ordinary construction for closing' such entrances. The gates are hinged in the usual manner to posts which rise from the corners of the platforms, .and close against the usual jambs which project from the sides of the cars. The platforms are provided with the usual guard-railings, extending inward from the above-mentioned posts to similar posts which are located a sufficient distance apart to leave a passage-way from one car to the other. When the gates are thus- arranged, it is necessary, in order to close or open both gates; for the guard to pass from one platform around the inner post to the opposite platform, thus causing some delay in opening and closing one of -the gates, adding to the labor of the guard, and causing annoyance to the passengers. In order to avoid this, each of the gates is provided, at a suitable distance from its hinge, with a curved lever, which extends rearward and terminates a short distance outside of the guard-railing. This lever is connected by a link, e, with a rod, f, which slides in or on a suitable bearing secured to the guard-railing, and is provided at its inner end with a handle by which it can be operated. The guard or attendant, while standing in the passage-way, can, by grasping the two handles and pushing or pulling the rods, f, open or close both gates simultaneously and without loss of time.

The specification states that the rods, f, will preferably be provided with some form of locking mechanism by which the *87 gates can be fastened in their opened or closed positions; and that such locking may be accomplished by having the handles pivoted to the rods, f, as shown, and provided with extensions which can be turned so as to extend in front of the inner posts, and hold the gates closed, or so as to lie in the rear of lugs and hold the gates open. It then describes an arrangement whereby the rods, /, and links, e, may be placed upon the inside of the guard-railings, as well as upon the outside; and also an arrangement by which the connections for operating the gates may, if desired, be placed beneath the platforms; and also an arrangement whereby the gates may be so hinged as to lie against the body of the car when open, instead of against the guard-rail^ ings; and also an arrangement whereby sliding gates may be used, instead of swinging gates. ■ •

There are six claims in the patent, only the first five of which are involved in the present case. They are as follows:

“ 1. The combination, with a gate arranged to close the side entrance to a car-platform, of an operating-handle located at or near the inner end of the platform guard-rail, and means connecting said gate and handle, whereby the attendant may open and close the gate while standing at the end of said guard-rail, 'Substantially as described.
“ 2. The combination, with gates, arranged to close the side entrances to the adjoining platforms of two cars, of operating-handles located at or near the inner ends of the platform guard-rails, and means connecting said gates and handles, whereby the attendant may open or close both gates simultaneously while Standing at the ends of said guard-rails, substantially as described.
“3. The combination, with a railway car and its platform, having an end guard-rail, by which a side entrance thereto is provided, of a gate for closing said entrance, a rod, as,/, sliding in or on guides secured to said guard-rail, and a link, as e, connected to said gate and rod, all substantially as described.
“4. The combination, with a railway car and its platform, having an. end guard-rail, by which a side entrance thereto is provided, of a swinging gate for closing said entrance, a rod, as f, sliding in or on a guide secured to said rail, a link, as e. *88 connected to said gate and rod, and means for locking said gate in its closed position, all substantially as,described.
“ 5. The combination, with gates arranged to close the side entrances to the adjoining platforms of two cars, of rods, as sliding in or on guides secured to the guard-rails of said platforms, and links, as e, connected to said gates and rods, substantially as described.”

The opinion of Judge Wallace is reported in' 26 Fed. Eep. 314. The only question he considered was that of the patentable novelty of the improvement, saying:

“ A brief reference to the prior state of the art will indicate that the combinations referred to in the several claims are merely an application to a new situation of old devices which had been previously applied to analogous uses. Devices to open and close an aperture at a distance from the operator, in a great variety of forms, were old.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Magnavox Co. v. Talking Sales Pictures, Inc.
38 F. Supp. 337 (N.D. Illinois, 1941)
Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. First Nat. Stores, Inc.
37 F. Supp. 553 (D. Massachusetts, 1941)
Hookless Fastener Co. v. Greenberg
18 F. Supp. 296 (S.D. California, 1937)
Donner v. Sheer Pharmacal Corporation
64 F.2d 217 (Eighth Circuit, 1933)
Herman Body Co. v. St. Louis Body & Equipment Co.
46 F.2d 879 (Eighth Circuit, 1931)
Fisher Governor Co. v. C. F. Camp Co.
40 F.2d 341 (Tenth Circuit, 1930)
Carson v. American Smelting & Refining Co.
293 F. 771 (W.D. Washington, 1923)
Standard Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co.
284 F. 469 (Eighth Circuit, 1922)
Werk v. Parker
249 U.S. 130 (Supreme Court, 1919)
Ohmer Fare Register Co. v. Ohmer
238 F. 182 (Sixth Circuit, 1916)
Apple v. American Shoe Machinery & Tool Co.
232 F. 603 (Eighth Circuit, 1916)
Æolian Co. v. Wanamaker
221 F. 666 (D. Connecticut, 1915)
Mead Morrison Mfg. Co. v. Exeter Mach. Works
215 F. 731 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1914)
Weir Frog Co. v. Porter
206 F. 670 (Sixth Circuit, 1913)
Knapp v. United States
46 Ct. Cl. 601 (Court of Claims, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 U.S. 84, 10 S. Ct. 24, 33 L. Ed. 272, 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aron-v-manhattan-railway-co-scotus-1889.