Fay v. Cordesman

109 U.S. 408, 3 S. Ct. 236, 27 L. Ed. 979, 1883 U.S. LEXIS 983
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedDecember 3, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by99 cases

This text of 109 U.S. 408 (Fay v. Cordesman) 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
Fay v. Cordesman, 109 U.S. 408, 3 S. Ct. 236, 27 L. Ed. 979, 1883 U.S. LEXIS 983 (1883).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Blatohford

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit in equity ivas brought for the infringement of three several letters, patent. The first is reissue No. 1,527, granted to John Richards, August 25th, 1863, for a “ guide and support for scroll-saws,” the original patent, No. 35,390, having been granted to him May 27th, 1862, for an “ improved guide and support for scroll-saws.” The specification of the reissue is as follows, including what is inside of brackets and what is outside of brackets, omitting what is in italic:

“To all ’whom it may concern: Be it known that I, John Richards, of Columbus, in the county of Franklin, and State of Ohio, have invented a new and useful [method of guiding and supporting] combined guide, guard and support for scroll-saws ; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear .and exact description of [one practical means of’ cariying out my invention] the same, reference being had to the accompanying drawings forming part of this specification, in which [Figure] Fig. 1 is a perspective view of a portion of [a \the table and [a] the saw-blade [of a scroll saw-mill,’ with my invention applied to the same.] and my improved upper combined guide,' guard and support. [Figure] Fig. 2, a longitudinal section of the same connected to the suspended stud of the building. [Figure] Fig. 3 is a horizontal section [through the guide and support.] in the line x x, of *410 Fig. 2. [The same] Similar letters of reference [where used] in [different] the several figures indicate corresponding parts. [It has long been a desideratum to obtain a scroll saw-mill which will work successfully while the upper end of the saw blade is left free from a sash or upper straining device ; and this has never been attained until the development] The nature of my invention [which] under this patent consists, [1st, in working the saw at a point above the table 'in a groove which is enclosed by anti-friction material, such as steel, polished iron, or glass, or any other known and suitable metal or substance, the upper end of the saw being disconnected from any upper suspender or sash, but supported and guided at its back edges and at its sides or broad faces, and its lower end connected to any mechanical device that will produce the desired motion in the .saw. It consists, 2d, in an adjustable guide and support whereby different thicknesses of scroll or web saw may be used at will. It consists, 3d, in attaching the anti-friction guide and support to an adjustable device which constitutes a guard to hold down the stuff being sawed, and also insures a support of the saw at - the point near where the sawing is performed as well as above this point. My principle of operating a scroll or web saw must not be confounded with the ‘muley saw,’ as in the ‘muley saw’ it is common to employ guides attached to the saw, such guides running in or upon bearings independent of the saw plate, whereas with the web or scroll saw worked according to my discovery, the back of the blade or plate is supported upon a hardened steel or other durable anti-friction surface, 'and is guided laterally by similar surfaces, so that the saw is supported and guided withput any means of tension being employed. ■ Furthermore, ‘ muley ’ saws are supported at each end by cross-heads, and only in the centre by lateral guides; and a saw must be employed that is strong enough in its cross-section to stand the work. Now, with my plan, I support the saw down to the top of the wood being sawed, which is a new thing, in this class of saw-mills, and enables me to use small, light saw blades. Previously to my discovery of running the upper end of the web or scroll-saw in frictional contact with an upper guide, it was deemed an impracticable thing, and it is now. only by practical demonstration and long use that saw-mill men are convinced that such method of working scroll or web-saws will not cut through and rapidly wear out the guide. *411 Tlie non-destruction of the guide in a short period of time, although the pressure upon it is immense, is due to the fact of the guide being of hardened steel or other smooth, hard material, over -which the saw-plate glides with but little frictional wear.] in the guide and back supporting bars or plates in connection with the sliding guard, the same constituting a combined guide, guard .and support for the free or disconnected upper portions of d scroll-saw blade. To enable others skilled in the art to make and use my invention, I will proceed to describe [one practical means in which I have embodied it with great success; but, in doing so, I do not wish to be understood as limiting myself to these mechanical devices in themselves, as the principle may be embodied in various other means and still not depart from the discovery embodied in machinery that I desire to patent.] its construction and operation with reference to the drawings. [Not using] I do not-use a sash [or] nor other means of straining the saw S, [I] but fasten the lower end of the [blade] same to the upper end of a stock or slide, S', of [a] the pitman, by a set screw, S2, or [I may otherwise connect this end of the blade to a device which will properly operate the saw. The] in any other similar manner, and have its top or upper [end of the saw] portion disconnected above the table [T,] T. [I leave entirely disconnected, but in order to steady or guide and support this free end during the sawing operation, I attach a grooved steel guide to a] The said upper portion of the saw is supported and guided by means of the two parallel bars a a, and the angular plate b. The bars have a lateral adjustment to accommodate saws of different thicknesses, their purpose being to keep the saw in a true vertical line, and to keep it from twisting, while the office of the bade plate, b V, is to support the sato against the strain of the stuff on the teeth, when the work is being shoved against it. The guides a a, and back plate b V, are all made of hardened steel, to prevent friction and v:ear. This device a abb' is fastened to the lower end of the sliding strip or guard piece A, [other device which will answer as a firm support to the guide, and as a guard to keep down the .lumber being sawed. The device A is attached to a] which is fitted in a grove of a suspended stud [or timber] B, of the building, [and is better if made adjustable by means of a slot and clamp-bolt, such as designated by the letters e c d; but other known means for adjusting this device may be adopted. The guide, as shown, is formed of three parts, to wit, *412 a black plate, b, and two si,de plates a, a, which latter are bolted or screwed firmly to the former, as shown. The slots S through which the bolts ff pass are large enough to allow the plates a a a slight lateral adjustment whenever it is desired to use a saw with a greater thickness or a thinner saw.

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

Related

Brook v. Mitchell (In Re Mitchell)
344 B.R. 171 (M.D. Florida, 2006)
B.E. Wallace Products Corp. v. United States
26 Cl. Ct. 490 (Court of Claims, 1992)
Casler v. United States
15 Cl. Ct. 717 (Court of Claims, 1988)
Weber v. Ford Motor Co.
664 F. Supp. 631 (D. Massachusetts, 1987)
Petersen v. Fee International, Ltd.
381 F. Supp. 1071 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1974)
Strumskis v. United States
474 F.2d 623 (Court of Claims, 1973)
Norwood v. Ehrenreich Photo-Optical Industries, Inc.
322 F. Supp. 898 (C.D. California, 1970)
Q-Tips, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson (Two Cases)
207 F.2d 509 (Third Circuit, 1953)
Oldfield v. Nunn Brass Works
42 F. Supp. 262 (W.D. New York, 1941)
Haynes Stellite Co. v. Osage Metal Co.
110 F.2d 11 (Tenth Circuit, 1939)
Mantz v. Kersting
29 F. Supp. 706 (S.D. California, 1939)
Oliver United Filters, Inc. v. Eimco Corp.
91 F.2d 345 (Tenth Circuit, 1937)
Akro Agate Co. v. Master Marble Co.
18 F. Supp. 305 (N.D. West Virginia, 1937)
Bailey v. Galion Iron Works & Mfg. Co.
80 F.2d 805 (Fourth Circuit, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 U.S. 408, 3 S. Ct. 236, 27 L. Ed. 979, 1883 U.S. LEXIS 983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fay-v-cordesman-scotus-1883.