Home/Supreme Court/Forncrook v. Root

Forncrook v. Root

127 U.S. 176, 8 S. Ct. 1247, 32 L. Ed. 97, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1976
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 23, 1888
Docket225
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 127 U.S. 176 (Forncrook v. Root) 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
Forncrook v. Root, 127 U.S. 176, 8 S. Ct. 1247, 32 L. Ed. 97, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1976 (1888).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Blatohford

delivered the opinion of the court.

■ This is a suit in equity, brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio, by James Forncrook against Amos I. Boot, for the infringement of letters-patent of the United States, No. 243,674, granted to the plaintiff, June 28, 1881, for an “improvement in sectional honey-frames,” on an application filed May 13, 1879.

The specification, claim, and drawings of the patent, are as follows:

“Be it known that I, James Forncrook, of Watertown, in the county of Jefferson and State of Wisconsin, have invented certain hew and useful improvements in sectional honey-frames, and I do hereby declare the following to be a full, clear, and exact description of the invention, such as will enable others skilled in the art to which it appertains to make and use the same, reference being had to the accompanying drawings, and to letters of reference marked thereon, which form a part of this specification. This invention relates to an improvement in sectional honey-frames, the object, being to so construct them that they shall be stronger and in a more portable form than the frames now used for such purposes ; and the invention consists essentially in forming the frames from a single blank or piece of material having all the necessary grooves and recesses required to form a complete frame cut in it, the ends of the blank being notched or dentated, and angular grooves cut across it at those points which are to form the corners. These blanks, after being thus prepared, may be packed solidly in boxes, or otherwise, for transportation, and, when required for use, are bent into the square forms, and their ends united at one of the corners, by means of the interlocking notches or teeth, thus forming a complete frame ready for use. In the drawings, Fig. lisa plan of one of the blanks, showing the various recesses and grooves- with which it is sup *178 plied'. Fig. 2 is an edge view of the blank, and shows the form and depth of the angular grooves which form the corners of the frame. Fig. 3 shows the blank bent into a square form, with the ends united, making a complete frame. ready for use. Fig. 4 shows a modification of the groove or mitre c, Fig. 2. The blanks for these frames are preferably formed from some light, tasteless, and comparatively tough -wood, which will bend at the corners without steaming or boiling, such as bass wood or white wood, the material being produced by cutting it from the log in the form of a thick veneer, or by sawing into thin stuff and then planing both surfaces. The blanks A are then cut from this material, of the proper width and length, the ends dentated, as shown at a a, by means of a series of circular saws placed close together upon an arbor or other suitable tool, so that they will interlock when brought together. The recesses b b are then formed in its edges, at such points in its length as will bring them at the top and bottom of the frames when set. up in the hive. These recesses form openings which allow space for the passage of the bees between the frame, and for the ventilation of this part of the hive. Three triangular grooves o c o are then cut across the blank at such points in its length as will divide it into four nearly equal parts, each of which forms one side of the frame after the blank is bent into a quadrangular shape. These triangular grooves are cut nearly through the blank, sufficient wood only being left to hold the parts firmly together. As the sides of the grooves c are inclined toward each other at a right angle, it follows that, when the blank is bent into the form of a frame, these grooves make perfectly fitting interjoints at three of its corners, the fourth corner being that at which the ends of the blank are united to each other by means of the interlocking teeth formed thereon. In one of these spaces, between two of the grooves o, and preferably that which will form the top of the frame when placed in the hive, is formed a longitudinal groove, d, for the guide-strip, which makes a secure point of attachment for the comb, when the bees begin to build-in the frames set side by side in the hive, with the parts of the frame containing the recesses b b at top. These *179 frames meet a want long felt by bee keepers, as those- in common use are either dovetailed or nailed together at the corners, and, if set up at the manufactory, form a large bulk for transportation, and are very liable to breakage in handling; but, if sold to the user in pieces, to be put together by him, the numerous joints to be made cause loss of time and produce a very fragile article when finished, which loses its rectangular shape with the' slightest rough usage, as the joints at the corners lack the necessary strength and.rigidity to hold them in shape. My frame will be found to possess none of the above named defects, as it is intended for transportation in solid packages before being set up, and, when set up, possesses great strength and rigidity, preserving its form without difficulty during all the rough handling to which such frames are frequently subjected. Having thus described my invention, I claim as new, and desire to secure by letters-patent, the following: As a new article of manufacture, a blank for honey-frames formed of a single piece of wood, having transverse angular grooves e, longitudinal groove d, and recesses 5, all arranged in the manner shown and described.”

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

Related

Frank W. Butler and Catalina Yachts, Inc., a California Corporation v. Jack A. Helms, D/B/A Jack A. Helms Company
550 F.2d 954 (Fourth Circuit, 1977)
E. Van Noorden Co. v. Cheney Co.
75 F.2d 298 (First Circuit, 1934)
Davey Tree Expert Co. v. Frost & Bartlett Co.
300 F. 680 (D. Connecticut, 1924)
Hodgson v. Vroom
266 F. 267 (Second Circuit, 1920)
Boynton v. Taggart
40 App. D.C. 82 (D.C. Circuit, 1913)
United States Mineral Wool Co. v. Manville Covering Co.
125 F. 770 (Seventh Circuit, 1903)
Francis v. Howard County
50 F. 44 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Texas, 1892)
Fond Du Lac County v. May
137 U.S. 395 (Supreme Court, 1890)
Perkins v. Eaton
40 F. 672 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Michigan, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 U.S. 176, 8 S. Ct. 1247, 32 L. Ed. 97, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forncrook-v-root-scotus-1888.