Davey Pegging-Mach. Co. v. Isaac Prouty & Co.

96 F. 336, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3247
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
DecidedAugust 4, 1899
DocketNo. 971
StatusPublished

This text of 96 F. 336 (Davey Pegging-Mach. Co. v. Isaac Prouty & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davey Pegging-Mach. Co. v. Isaac Prouty & Co., 96 F. 336, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3247 (circtdma 1899).

Opinion

BROWN, District Judge.

This suit is for infringement of letters patent No. 555,434, granted February 25, 1896, to John F. Davey, for an improvement in pegging-machines. The invention relates to a device which goes inside a shoe to support the insole while the awl and peg are successively driven through the leather. The specification states that it is the purpose of the invention to overcome certain difficulties, and—

“To provide a horn-tip and work support therein by means of which shoes can be pegged rapidly and satisfactorily after the last is drawn. To this end the horn-tip of the machine embodying this invention is provided with an annular support, and a work-supporting anvil or button mounted to rotate therein, and provided with gearing by which it is retained in the same position with relation to the awl and driver of the machine, whatever may be the position of the horn, which has to -be rotated in presenting different parts of the edge of the shoe to the awl and driver in the usual manner.”

Claim 1 of the patent in suit is as follows:

“(1) A work-support for pegging-machines, comprising a horn-tip provided with a supporting-annulus, combined with a button having a shank contained [337]*337within said annulus, and a supporting portion resting on said annulus, said button being provided with external gear-teeth in a portion of its surface in bearing engagement with said annulus, substantially as and for the purpose described.”

The first question is as to the validity of this claim, — especially in view of tbe patent to Sturtevant & Bickford, dated February 15, 1876 (No. 173,428). for a pegging-machine. Tbe following drawings illustrate tbe respective devices of Sturtevant & Bickford, 1876, and of Davey, 1896.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 F. 336, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davey-pegging-mach-co-v-isaac-prouty-co-circtdma-1899.