Clements v. Odorless Excavating Apparatus Co.

109 U.S. 641, 3 S. Ct. 525, 27 L. Ed. 1060, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1739
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 7, 1884
Docket136
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 109 U.S. 641 (Clements v. Odorless Excavating Apparatus 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
Clements v. Odorless Excavating Apparatus Co., 109 U.S. 641, 3 S. Ct. 525, 27 L. Ed. 1060, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1739 (1884).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Blatohford

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit in equity, brought for the infringement of reissued letters patent' No. 6,962, granted to Lewis R.-.Keizer, February 29th,"1816,.for an “improvement in apparatus for cleaning privies,” the.original patent, No. 115,565, having *642 been granted, June 6tli, 1871, to Henry C. Bull and Joseph M. Lowenstein, on tbe invention of said Bull, and tbe application for tbe reissue baying been filed. January lltb, 1876. Tbe specification says:

“ My invention consists, mainly, in a sink-cleaning apparatus,' consisting of an-air-pump, a deodorizer’, and suitable tubular connections, in combination with an independent or movable receiving cask, having an induction passage or opening, and also an air-passage for connecting with the air-pump, and provided with stench- and water-tight covers for both passages, whereby the movable cask may be located in any desired position with relation to the vault, and the air-pump and the deodorizer properly located with reference to the vault and cask, and also whereby the cask,' when filled, may be trundled on its "bilge or end, after the usual manner of handling casks or barrels. My invention consists, further, in the combination with the cask, of a flanged opening, a detachable suction-pump or funnel,connected with the flange of the opening, and a check-valve located within the cask for retaining the offensive matter after, passing through the valve. My invention still further consists in the combination with the air-passage of a night-soil cask, of a float-valve, whereby, when the cask is filled with fluid matters, the valve will be floated and closed, thereby indicating that the cask is filled, and preventing the fluid matter from entering the conducting-pipe and passing through the air-passage to the air-pump, which would otherwise be liable to have its valves clogged thereby and rendered inoperative. To more particularly describe my invention, I will refer to the accompanying drawings, in which Fig. 1 represents, in side view, a cask embodying several features of my invention, located within a privy. Fig. 2 represents, in side view, an air-pump connected with the cask by a flexible tube or suction-hose, and provided with a deodorizer. Fig. 3 represents a privy-vault. Fig. 4 represents, on an enlarged scale and in detail, in vertical central section, the cask shown in Fig. 1. A vault is indicated at A. It is provided with the usual entrance or opening, as at a. B denotes one of several casks or receptacles which are employed in connection with an air-pump, as at C, for removing the offensive matter from the vault. The cask B has at one end a screw-neck, i, and the check-valve d, which opens inwardly. Said cask also has another screw-neck, as at,. M, to *643 the suction-hose which communicates with the air-pump. Attached to this neck is also a float-valve, as at / which guards the entrance to- the suction-tube or hose. The spindle of the valve /is provided, in a well-known manner, with guiding devices. The lower portion of' the float-valve is pro- vided with cork or other light material, whereby, when the Fig. 2 cask

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

Related

Rourke v. Amchem Products, Inc.
835 A.2d 193 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2003)
Varian v. Llewellyn
178 F.2d 997 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1950)
Sontag Chain Stores Co. v. National Nut Co. of Cal.
310 U.S. 281 (Supreme Court, 1940)
Otis Elevator Co. v. Atlantic Elevator Co.
47 F.2d 545 (Second Circuit, 1931)
Brown & Bigelow v. Louis F. Dow Co.
42 F.2d 785 (Eighth Circuit, 1930)
Stern v. Schroeder
36 F.2d 518 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1929)
Pierce v. Bell
239 F. 549 (S.D. New York, 1917)
American Automotoneer Co. v. Porter
232 F. 456 (Sixth Circuit, 1916)
Hillborn v. Hale & Kilburn Manuf'g Co.
69 F. 958 (Third Circuit, 1895)
Topliff v. Topliff
145 U.S. 156 (Supreme Court, 1892)
Electric Gas-Lighting Co. v. Boston Electric Co.
139 U.S. 481 (Supreme Court, 1891)
Hutchinson v. Everett
33 F. 502 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1887)
Schwarzenbach v. Odorless Excavating Apparatus Co.
3 A. 676 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1886)
Tubular Rivet Co. v. Copeland
26 F. 706 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1886)
Hammond v. Franklin
22 F. 833 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1885)
Torrent Arms Lumber Co. v. Rodgers
112 U.S. 659 (Supreme Court, 1885)
Odell v. Stout
22 F. 159 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1884)
Matthews v. Iron-Clad Manuf'g Co.
21 F. 641 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1884)
Wooster v. Handy
21 F. 51 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 U.S. 641, 3 S. Ct. 525, 27 L. Ed. 1060, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clements-v-odorless-excavating-apparatus-co-scotus-1884.