Home/U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York/Doig v. Sutherland

Doig v. Sutherland

87 F. 991, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2766
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided May 18, 1898·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

The patents in suit, Nos. 276,639, dated May 1, 1883, and 342,268, dated May 18, 1886, granted to complainant and one Thomas .L. Smith, relate to a series of devices used in machines for nailing boxes, the great desideratum therein being economy of time. These machines comprise generally a nail pan for receiving the nails, nail ways for conducting them to the cut-outs, a cut-out so arranged as to separate individual nails and place them in the nail chutes, and other devices not necessary to be here considered. The complainant, by his later patent, No. 342,-268, improved on the prior art by introducing into the nail chutes a series of overlapping joints in the nail ways in place of (he earlier flush joint, and, in connection therewith, open journals for the bearings of said nail ways, thus insuring better delivery, and obviating the objections of breakage. These two improvements, operating together, were especially useful in enabling the machine to automatically free itself, when it became clogged from damaged nails, thus promoting certainty of operation. This construction is covered by claims 1 and 3 of said patent No. 342,268, which are as follows:

[992] “(1) In a box-nailing machine, substantially as, described, a nail-supply pan, as O, arranged in rear of the nail-feeding device, P, and having pivots, o, supported in open journals, p', the said pivots being arranged to rise freely when the nail-feeding device becomes clogged, as herein set forth.”
“(3) The combination, with a nail-feeding mechanism provided with plates forming nail ways, of a nail-supply pan, also having plates in its bottom forming nail ways, the said supply pan being pivoted in the automatic vertically adjustable bearings at the rear of the nail-feeding mechanism, substantially as and for the purpose described.”

[993]

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

Doig v. Sutherland, 87 F. 991, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2766 (circtsdny 1898).

87 F. 991 (Doig v. Sutherland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brown Bag-Filling Mach. Co. v. Drohen
140 F. 97 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York, 1905)
Doig v. Morgan Mach. Co.
117 F. 305 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York, 1902)
Doig v. Morgan Mach. Co.
89 F. 489 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York, 1898)