Home/Supreme Court/Consolidated Safety-Valve Co. v. Crosby Steam Gauge & Valve Co.

Consolidated Safety-Valve Co. v. Crosby Steam Gauge & Valve Co.

113 U.S. 157, 5 S. Ct. 513, 28 L. Ed. 939, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1664
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 19, 1885
Docket127
StatusPublished
Cited by99 cases

This text of 113 U.S. 157 (Consolidated Safety-Valve Co. v. Crosby Steam Gauge & Valve 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
Consolidated Safety-Valve Co. v. Crosby Steam Gauge & Valve Co., 113 U.S. 157, 5 S. Ct. 513, 28 L. Ed. 939, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1664 (1885).

Opinion

Ms. Justice Blatcheokd

delivered the opinion of the court.

On the 27th of May, 1879, the Consolidated Safety-Valve Company, a Connecticut corporation, brought a suit in equity, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts, against the Crosby Steam Gauge and Valve Company a Massachusetts corporation, for the infringement of letters patent No. 58,294, granted to George W. Richardson, September 25,1866, for an improvement in steam safety-valves. The specification of the patent is as follows:

“ Be it known, that I, George W. Richardson, of the city of Troy, in the county of Rensselaer, in the State of New York, have invented a new and useful improvement on a safety-valve for steam generators, and I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear and exact description of the construction and operation of the same, reference being had to the annexed drawings, making a part of this' specification, in which Fig. 1 is an end view of my improved safety-valve and its seat, as seen from the bottom; Fig. 2 is an end view of the valve aloné, as se4n from the bottom; Fig. 3 is vertical section at x x, Fig 1, of the valve and seat in position; Fig. 4 is a vertical' section at y y, Fig. 2, of the valve alone. Similar colors and letters of reference indicate corresponding parts in the several figures. A A is the head of the safety-valve; B B B B are wings to guide the valve into its seat E F; c c is a circular or annular flange or lip, extending over, slightly below, and fitting loosely around, the outer edge of the valve-seat E E; D D is a circular or annular chamber, into which the steam immediately passes when the valve lifts from its seat at the ground joint F F\ E E is the valve seat; F F is the ground joint of the valve and seat; P is the countersink or centre upon which the point of the stud extending from the scale lever rests, in the usual manner. The nature of my invention consists in increasing* the area of the head of the common safety-valve outside of its ground joint, and' terminating it in such a way as to form an increased resisting surface, against which the steam escaping *160 from the generator shall act with additional force after it has lifted the valve from its seat at the ground joint, and so, by-overcoming the rapidly increasing resistance of the spring or scales, insure the lifting of the valve still higher, thus affording so certain and free a passage for the steam to escape as effectually to prevent the bursting of the boiler or generator, even when the steam is shut off and the damper left open.

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

Related

Pennwalt Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant
833 F.2d 931 (Federal Circuit, 1987)
Hunt Tool Company and Louis Davis v. Richard R. Lawrence, Dailey Oil Tools, Inc., and Houston Oil Field Materials Co., Inc.
242 F.2d 347 (Fifth Circuit, 1957)
Skinner v. Dow Chemical Co.
90 F. Supp. 877 (E.D. Michigan, 1950)
Lincoln Stores, Inc. v. Nashua Mfg. Co.
157 F.2d 154 (First Circuit, 1946)
Sbicca-Del Mac, Inc. v. Milius Shoe Co.
145 F.2d 389 (Eighth Circuit, 1944)
Slayter & Co. v. Stebbins-Anderson Co.
31 F. Supp. 96 (D. Maryland, 1940)
Burman v. Larkey
22 F. Supp. 633 (D. Minnesota, 1938)
Hartford-Empire Co. v. Demuth Glass Works, Inc.
19 F. Supp. 626 (E.D. New York, 1937)
Drumhead Co. of America v. Hammond
18 F. Supp. 734 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1936)
Wine Ry. Appliance Co. v. Baltimore & O. R.
5 F. Supp. 219 (D. Maryland, 1933)
National Battery Co. v. Richardson Co.
63 F.2d 289 (Sixth Circuit, 1933)
Wailes Dove-Hermiston Corp. v. Oklahoma Contracting Co.
48 F.2d 901 (N.D. Texas, 1931)
In re Jackson
36 F.2d 120 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1929)
General Electric Co. v. George J. Hagan Co.
38 F.2d 995 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1929)
Rice & Adams Corp. v. Lathrop
278 U.S. 509 (Supreme Court, 1929)
Trane Co. v. Nash Engineering Co.
25 F.2d 267 (First Circuit, 1928)
Smith v. American Electric Rabbit Racing Ass'n
21 F.2d 366 (E.D. Louisiana, 1927)
Radio Corp. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co.
14 F.2d 643 (D. New Jersey, 1926)
Tibbetts v. Olson
108 So. 679 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1926)
Acme Foundry & Machine Co. v. Oil Well Improvements Co.
2 F.2d 530 (Eighth Circuit, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 U.S. 157, 5 S. Ct. 513, 28 L. Ed. 939, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consolidated-safety-valve-co-v-crosby-steam-gauge-valve-co-scotus-1885.