Bussey v. Excelsior Manufacturing Co.

110 U.S. 131, 4 S. Ct. 38, 28 L. Ed. 95, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1665
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 21, 1884
Docket181
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 110 U.S. 131 (Bussey v. Excelsior Manufacturing 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
Bussey v. Excelsior Manufacturing Co., 110 U.S. 131, 4 S. Ct. 38, 28 L. Ed. 95, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1665 (1884).

Opinion

Me. Justice Blatchfobd

delivered the opinion of the court.

' This is a suit in equity brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri, by Esek Bussey and Charles A. McLeod against the Excelsior Manufacturing Company of St. Louis, a corporation, for the infringement of three several letters patent, being (1) reissue No. 3,815, granted to the1 plaintiffs, February 1st, 1870, for a “cooking- *133 stove,” the original patent, No. 56,686, having been granted to said Bussey, as inventor, July 24th, 1866, and reissued to him, as No. 3,649, September 28th, 1869; (2) letters patent No. 142,933, granted to David H. Nation and Ezekiel C. Little, as inventors, September 16th, 1873, for an “ improvement in reservoir cooking-stoves; ” (3) letters patent No. 142,934, granted to said Nation and Little, as inventors,- September 16th, 1873, for an “ improvement in- reservoir cooking-stoves.” After an answer and proofs, the Circuit Court made a decree finding no infringement of No. 3,815 and dismissing the bill as to that patent; decreeing that the other two patents were valid and had been infringed as to all their claims; and awarding a perpetual injunction as to those claims and an accounting before a master. The master reported one cent damages. The plain-' tiffs excepted to the report, claiming $14,972 damages. The court confirmed the report and made a decree accordingly, which also provided that the entire costs to be taxed in the suit should be divided and that the plaintiffs should pay' f of them and the defendant f. Both parties appealed to this court.

The specification of No. 3,815 says:

Figure 1 is a side elevation ; Fig. 2, a rear elevation ; Fig; 3, a plan; Fig. 4, a vertical section at the line z z ; Fig. 5, a front view of a section- at the line y y ; and Fig. 6, a top view of a partial section at the line x x, all of a cooking-stove embodying my said invention, like parts being marked by the same letters in all the figures, and the arrows therein being indicative of the courses in which the gases of combustion pass through the stove. One part of my invention consists in arranging a culinary boiler or hot-water reservoir in the rear of the oven of a diving-flue cooking stove, with an exit-flue extending down the front, under the bottom and up the rear of the said reservoir, substantially as hereinafter described and specified. It also consists in arranging a culinary boiler or hot-water reservoir in the rear of the oven of a diving-flue cooking-stove, with an exit-flue leading from some point in the rear of the vertical .flue or flues below the top of the said oven, and continuing under the bottom and up the rear side of said reservoir, substantially as hereinafter described and specified. It also con *134 sists in' the arrangement of a diving-flue cooking-stove, with an exit-passage constructed in the vertical rear flue or flues thereof, and below the top of the oven, in such a manner that the gases of combustion, after passing through such exit-passage, will impinge upon or come in contact with the bottom or sides of a reservoir placed in the rear of the stove, and just above said exit-passage, substantially as hereinafter described and specified. It also consists in the employment of a thin plate or sheet of metal between the front plate of the reservoir and the rear-end vertical flues of *135 the said stove, substantially as shown and specified. In illustration of my invention, the aforesaid drawings represent a cooking-stove having an oven, A, a culinary boiler or hot-water reservoir, B, arranged opposite to the rear upright side or end d of the oven, and an exit-flue, E E', extended from the central vertical flue K of said stove at a point below the top of the oven, under or across the bottom g of the reservoir, and from thence up along the rear upright side of said boiler or reservoir to the draft-pipe I. For the purpose of allowing the boiler to heat more readily, a portion of the rear-end vertical plate of said stove is removed, so as to Uncover the upper portion of the rear-end vertical flues, and the front of the boiler is attached to the rear of said flues, in the manner shown and described in my reissued patent of July 24th, 1866. Between the inner side of the boiler B and the rear-end vertical flues K and L L', a plate may be employed, indicated by dotted line w w. The object of this plate is as follows : It has been as-, certained by experience that when, during the use of the oven for baking purposes, a large quantity of cold water is suddenly poured into the reservoir, and there is nothing between the front of the boiler and gases of combustion passing through the rear-end vertical flues, the heat of the said gases will be so much absorbed by the reservoir as to sensibly cool the oven and interfere with the process of baking. • To obviate this I employ the thin plate w w, placed between the front of the reservoir and the said rear-end vertical flues, and which, while,it allows sufficient heat to pass through it to aid in heating the boiler, protects the front thereof from the direct impact of the gases of combustion, and preserves an equable heat in the oven. In case the said plate is dispensed with the inner side J of the said boiler will form a part of the lateral rear casing of the' said rear-end vertical flues, and will be heated by direct contact with the gases of combustion as they pass down and up the same. M is the fire-box, and N and R the top and bottom flues of said stove. The operation of my said invention is as follows : A fire being kindled in the fire-box M, and the damper Q at the top of the oven being open, so as to allow of a direct draft, the gases of combustion from the said firebox will pass down the middle vertical flue K, through the exit-passage F and exit-flue E E', to the smoke-pipe I, heating the contents of the reservoir in its passage through the exit-flue, as afore-, said. By this mode of construction I am enabled to obviate what *136 has been heretofore the greatest objection to reservoir-stoves of this class, namely,-that the reservoirs would not heat with a direct draft. It will also be observed that, by this device of constructing the exit-passage below the top of the oven, I can at the same time by a direct draft heat the rear side of the oven and the reservoir, instead of wasting the heat by carrying it directly to the chimney. When the damper Q is closed, for the purpose of heating the oven, the gases of combustion will pass down the side vertical flues L L and under the bottom of the oven, returning through a central horizontal flue to the central vertical flue K, from which they pass through the exit-flue E E', aforesaid.. I am aware that cooking-stoves have been in use in which the reservoir has been incased or inclosed on all sides except the top by a kind of expanded flue, through which the gases of combustion are made-to pass.

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

Related

W. A. Baum & Co. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.
20 F. Supp. 707 (D. New Jersey, 1937)
Tiffany v. Paper Products Co.
244 F. 178 (N.D. Georgia, 1917)
E. E. Johnson Co. v. Grinnell Washing Mach. Co.
231 F. 988 (Seventh Circuit, 1916)
Gas Machinery Co. v. United Gas Improvement Co.
228 F. 684 (Sixth Circuit, 1915)
Chow Loy v. United States
112 F. 354 (First Circuit, 1901)
Brown v. Puget Sound Reduction Co.
110 F. 383 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington, 1901)
McNulta v. West Chicago Park Com'rs
99 F. 328 (Seventh Circuit, 1900)
William Schwarzwaelder & Co. v. City of Detroit
77 F. 886 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan, 1896)
Sampson v. Donaldson
69 F. 621 (Eighth Circuit, 1895)
United States v. Fitch
70 F. 578 (Sixth Circuit, 1895)
Stirrat v. Excelsior Manuf'g Co.
61 F. 980 (Eighth Circuit, 1894)
Johnson Co. v. Pacific Rolling-Mills Co.
47 F. 586 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1891)
American Road-Machine Co. v. Pennock & Sharp Co.
45 F. 252 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1890)
Florsheim v. Schilling
137 U.S. 64 (Supreme Court, 1890)
Haughey v. Lee
48 F. 382 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1890)
Hendy v. Golden State & Miners' Iron Works
127 U.S. 370 (Supreme Court, 1888)
Leonard v. Lovell
29 F. 310 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Michigan, 1886)
Thompson v. Boisselier
114 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1885)
Spill v. Celluloid Manuf'g Co.
21 F. 631 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 U.S. 131, 4 S. Ct. 38, 28 L. Ed. 95, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bussey-v-excelsior-manufacturing-co-scotus-1884.