Home/Eighth Circuit/Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Fowler

Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Fowler

121 F. 988, 58 C.C.A. 643, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4710
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 23, 1903
DocketNo. 1,746
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 121 F. 988 (Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Fowler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Fowler, 121 F. 988, 58 C.C.A. 643, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4710 (8th Cir. 1903).

Opinion

THAYER, Circuit Judge.

This is an action to restrain the infringement of letters patent No. 446,230, issued tOi Will F. Hoyt on February 10, 1891, being the same patent that was before this court for consideration at its last term in a case entitled “Dowagiac Manufacturing Company v. Minnesota Moline Plow Company,” 118 Fed. 136. In that case the court was unanimous in holding that what was there termed the “McSherry old structure” (a cut of which appears on the adjoining page) was an infringement of the device described and covered by the patent issued to Hoyt (a cut whereof, including the clamping plates, PP', also appears on the opposite page). In the case formerly decided by this court the crucial question that was involved as respects the McSherry old structure was whether an infringement was avoided by dispensing in the latter device with the clamping plates, PP', which were described in the Hoyt specification. This court adopted, through comity, the view of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in McSherry Manufacturing Company v. Dowagiac Manufacturing Company, 41 C. C. A. 627, 101 Fed. 716, that the drill covered by the Hoyt patent disclosed patentable novelty; [989]*989that the clamping plates, although described in the Hoyt patent and mentioned in the claims, really formed a section of what are termed in the patent the spring pressure rods, 11; that the plates might have been omitted, and the ends of the spring rods, 11, pivoted directly to the bolt, e e, between the forward ends of the drawbars, the spring rods being provided with lugs to bear on the drawbars when the rods were bent downward; that the clamping plates as de[990]*990scribed w.ere really nonessential parts of the invention; that the omission of the same in the McSherry old structure did not avoid an infringement of the Hoyt patent, since a full equivalent of the clamping plates was found in the McSherry old structure, consisting of a wedge-plate provided with lugs to engage the drawbars when the spring rods which McSherry employed were pressed downward by means of the lever. 41 C. C. A. 631, 632, 101 Fed. 718.

[989]*989

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

Related

Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Deere & Webber Co.
284 F. 331 (Eighth Circuit, 1922)
Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Moline Plow Co.
183 F. 314 (Eighth Circuit, 1910)
McSherry Mfg. Co. v. Dowagiac Mfg. Co.
160 F. 948 (Sixth Circuit, 1908)
Robins Conveying Belt Co. v. American Road Mach. Co.
142 F. 221 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 F. 988, 58 C.C.A. 643, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dowagiac-mfg-co-v-fowler-ca8-1903.