Grier v. Wilt

120 U.S. 412, 7 S. Ct. 718, 30 L. Ed. 712, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 1987
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 7, 1887
Docket148
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 120 U.S. 412 (Grier v. Wilt) 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
Grier v. Wilt, 120 U.S. 412, 7 S. Ct. 718, 30 L. Ed. 712, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 1987 (1887).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Blatchford

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit in equity brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Delaware, by John F. Wilt against George S. Grier, for the infringement of letters-patent No. 190,368, granted to Asa Quincy Reynolds, May 1, 1877, for an “ improvement in automatic fruit-driers.” The specification, drawings, and claims of the patent are as follows:

“ Figure 1 [p. 414] is a partial section and elevation of my improved fruit-drier, showing the same as being located over an ordinary stove, and illustrating a simple means of elevating the machine. Fig. 2 [p. 415] is a similar view, -showing the drier as located over a large furnace, as in the. most extensive .dry-houses. Fig. 3 [p. 416] is a perspective view, illustrating the improved drier in a position removed from over an ordinary cooking-stove. Fig. 4 [p. 417] is a perspective view of a fragment of a square tray or section, -showing more plainly the metallic lining and the sockets and pins, which may be conveniently used in this form of tray. Fig. 5 [p. 418] is a similar view of a fragment of a round tray or section, showing also the tin or metallic lining. Like letters of reference in all tho figures indicate corresponding parts.

“ The object of my invention is to simplify the construction of the fruit-driers in common use, both for domestic and factory purposes, reducing the cost, increasing the efficiency, and rendering them easier to be manipulated, and at the same time fire-proof, and capable of being enlarged or contracted at the pleasure of the operator; to accomplish all of which it (the invention) consists in certain details of construction and combination of parts, as will be hereinafter fully described, and then pointed out in the claims.

“ In Fig. 1, N is an ordinary stove or heating-drum, over which is located the drier, consisting of a number of trays so constructed as that any one will receive a similar one above

*414

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

Related

Turini v. Allens Mfg. Co., Inc
198 F.2d 491 (First Circuit, 1952)
Bank v. Rauland Corp.
146 F.2d 19 (Seventh Circuit, 1944)
Oswell v. Bloomfield
113 F.2d 377 (Seventh Circuit, 1940)
Beauchamp v. Schireson
18 F. Supp. 367 (S.D. California, 1937)
Chisholm-Ryder Co. v. Buck
65 F.2d 735 (Fourth Circuit, 1933)
General Mfg. Corp. v. Gray
48 F.2d 602 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1931)
Graham Paper Co. v. International Paper Co.
46 F.2d 881 (Eighth Circuit, 1931)
Hyman v. F. W. Woolworth Co.
28 F.2d 833 (Eighth Circuit, 1928)
Jorgenson v. Hawkins
14 F.2d 409 (Eighth Circuit, 1926)
Zip Mfg. Co. v. Pusch
2 F.2d 828 (Eighth Circuit, 1924)
Anakin Lock Works v. Dillon Lock Works
292 F. 45 (Eighth Circuit, 1923)
Weser Bros. v. Paul
276 F. 747 (S.D. New York, 1921)
Sodemann Heat & Power Co. v. Kauffman
275 F. 593 (Eighth Circuit, 1921)
Wonder Mfg. Co. v. Block
249 F. 748 (Ninth Circuit, 1918)
Thomas v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.
64 S.E. 220 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1910)
Morton v. Llewellyn
164 F. 693 (Ninth Circuit, 1908)
Brookfield v. Elmer Glass Works
144 F. 418 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 U.S. 412, 7 S. Ct. 718, 30 L. Ed. 712, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 1987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grier-v-wilt-scotus-1887.