Home/Supreme Court/Hartshorn v. Saginaw Barrel Co.

Hartshorn v. Saginaw Barrel Co.

119 U.S. 664, 7 S. Ct. 421, 30 L. Ed. 539, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 1932
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 10, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 119 U.S. 664 (Hartshorn v. Saginaw Barrel Co.) 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
Hartshorn v. Saginaw Barrel Co., 119 U.S. 664, 7 S. Ct. 421, 30 L. Ed. 539, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 1932 (1887).

Opinion

• Mr. Justice Matthews

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the complainant’s bill, which was a bill in equity for the purpose of enjoining the alleged infringement of three several letters-patent for improvements in shade rollers, desig- ■ nated as follows : 1st. Reissued patent No. 1370, dated October 31, 1876, granted to the complainant, called the Hartshorn reissue. 2d. Reissued patent No. 7367, dated October 31,1876, granted to the complainant as assignee of "William Campbell, called the Campbell reissue. 3d. Patent No. 69,189, dated *665 ¡September 24, 1867, granted to Jacob David, and assigned to • the complainant, called the David patent.

The questions in the case involve the validity of the reissued , patents' and the alleged infringement of the David patent;.' The Hartshorn reissue was the reissue of original letters-patent No. 68,502, dated September 8, 1867. The Campbell reissue was the reissue of' original letters-patent No. -69,176, dated - 'September 24, 1867. In each case there was, therefore,. a. . delay of about nine years in -obtaining the reissue.-

In ordel to understand and resolve the questions arising in the case it will be necessary to consider the state of the art at ' the time of the issue of the patents. This may be briefly stated as follows: The inventions in question are in that class of shade rollers which are rolled up by the unwinding of a coiled spring; the roller was hollow and the spring placed . within it, ,one end being attached to the roller and the other end to the shaft ■ or rod on which the roller revolved. Sometimes this rod passed entirely through the roller, and sometimes only partially through. As the curtain was drawn down the spring was wound up, and when the tension upon the cur- ■ tain was released and the curtain allowed to roll up, the spring was unwound, thereby producing the desired result. The'up- • ward movement of the curtain was controlled by a pawl and ratchet at one end of the roller, the pawl or the ratchet being-attached to the bracket; ' The pawl might be operated by'a' cord hung at the side of the w;indow; by pulling down on this cord- the pawl was disengaged from the ratchet and the curtain immediately rolled up under the action of the spring. Harts- - horn, the appellant, obtained a patent, not in controversy in this suit, but to be considered in reference to the state of the - art, dated October 11, 1864. The invention described in that-patent consisted in the application of a pawl and ratchet or . notched hub arranged in such a manner that the shade maybe stopped and retained at any desired height or point within. - the scope of its movement by a single manipulation of' the'' shade, the usual cord for operating or turning the .shade roller being dispensed with entirely, as well as counterpoises, which had in some instances been employed, in connection with spring *666 rollers,' for bolding the shade at' the desired point. He made a ratchet' with two notches, one on each side in the periphery of .the ratchet wheel, and constructed a pawl'to engage with such notches. The pawl was on the bracket, and the ratchet, .was on the roller. When the curtain was drawn down theJ spring in the roller was wound up, and when the curtain was released, while the pawl rested on the perimeter of the ratchet-wheel, the curtain would roll up, arid continue so to do as long . as the velocity of the curtain was sufficient to carry the notches in the ratchet past the pawl before it could fall' into them.

. Such was the condition of the art when Campbell obtained his original patent dated September 24, 1867. He. described his invention as having “for its-object to furnish an improved device, by means of which the spring roller of a window-shade -may be made to hold the shade stationary at - any desired elevation, and yet allow the same to be drawn down or run up, without obstruction or stoppage, as far as may be desired; and it consists in the combination of the loose or sliding pins Or bolts, having heads formed upon them, with the flattened shaft of the roller, as hereinafter more fully described.” The description, as contained, in the specifications, is as follows, having reference to the annexed drawings: “A is the window-shade. B is the hollow roller, one end of which is pivoted to the bracket C, and the other end of which revolves upon the shaft D, that carries the coiled spring, and the' projecting end of which is secured in the jaws of the bracket E, so that, by drawing down the shade A, and thus revolving the roller B, the coiled spring may be wound closer around the shaft D. In the block, or part of the roller B that closes or forms the end of the said hollow roller B, and forms its bearing upon the shaft D, are formed two holes leading, upon opposite sides, fro'fti its outer or convex surface to a little at one side of its centre, as shown in Fig. 2. The outer ends of these holes are countersunk, as shown. The two opposite sides of the shaft D within the block or part V are flattened or notched, as shown in Fig. 2. F are two pins or bolts, the bodies of 'which fit into the holes in the block V, and their heads fit into the coun: tersunk parts'of said holes.- The bolts or pins F are of such a

*667

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

Related

Rodriguez, Hector L.
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
O'DONNELL v. Watson Bros. Transportation Company
183 F. Supp. 577 (N.D. Illinois, 1960)
Box Patents, Inc. v. Universal Paper Box Mfg. Co.
57 F.2d 66 (Eighth Circuit, 1932)
Otis Elevator Co. v. Atlantic Elevator Co.
47 F.2d 545 (Second Circuit, 1931)
American Automotoneer Co. v. Porter
232 F. 456 (Sixth Circuit, 1916)
Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Black River Traction Co.
135 F. 759 (Second Circuit, 1905)
Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Aluminum Stopper Co.
108 F. 845 (Fourth Circuit, 1901)
Campbell Printing-Press & Manufacturing Co. v. Duplex Printing-Press Co.
86 F. 315 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan, 1898)
Carpenter Straw-Sewing Mach. Co. v. Searle
52 F. 809 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1892)
Sackett v. Smith
42 F. 846 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1890)
Thompson v. Gildersleeve
34 F. 43 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1888)
Hill v. Sawyer
31 F. 282 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 U.S. 664, 7 S. Ct. 421, 30 L. Ed. 539, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 1932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartshorn-v-saginaw-barrel-co-scotus-1887.