Home/U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts/Hawley Furnace Co. of New England v. Braintree & W. St. Ry. Co.

Hawley Furnace Co. of New England v. Braintree & W. St. Ry. Co.

96 F. 221, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3229
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
DecidedAugust 7, 1899
DocketNo. 777
StatusPublished

This text of 96 F. 221 (Hawley Furnace Co. of New England v. Braintree & W. St. Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hawley Furnace Co. of New England v. Braintree & W. St. Ry. Co., 96 F. 221, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3229 (circtdma 1899).

Opinion

COLT, Circuit Judge.

This suit relates to letters patent No. 447,-179, dated February 24, 1891, granted to Melville C. Hawley, for “a new and useful improvement in furnaces.” The specification says:

“This improvement relates to downward-draft furnaces, and more especially, but not exclusively, for boiler furnaces. Its object is to insure a sufficient downward draft through the upper grate, and at the same time a thorough and economical consumption of the fuel. The leading feature of the [222]*222improvement is the combination of a lower upward-burning grate with an upper downward-burning grate, the bars of said upper grate being spaced an unusual distance apart, or so constructed as to provide unusually wide spaces between the bars, whereby ample provision for a .downward draft through the upper fire is provided, as 'well as for the consumption of such partially-consumed fuel as may drop from the upper grate, all substantially as is hereinafter set forth and claimed, aided by the annexed drawings, making part of this specification, and exhibiting a desirable means for carrying out the improvement. * * ⅜ The two rows of tubes, A and B, constitute an upper fire-grate having a series of zigzag spaces, which, while being sufficiently contracted for effectively supporting the fuel during the first stages of its combustion, are yet sufficiently wide to provide for a downward draft, and to allow the fuel, after the earlier part of- its combustion is effected, to fall down through the bars of the upper grate, and be caught upon the second fire-grate, C, below. This last-named grate, O, is constructed of ordinary bars arranged in the ordinary manner, and it is preferably a dumping-grate. * * * The herein-described improved grate construction is adaptable to almost any ordinary boiler. The upper grate, including the water-chambers, D and E, can be applied as an attachment to existing boilers substantially in the same manner and as readily as to new' boilers, and in either case the lower grate can be arranged, as described, to co-act with the upper grate.”
[223]*223

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

Related

Springfield Furnace Co. v. Miller Down-Draft Furnace Co.
96 F. 418 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 F. 221, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawley-furnace-co-of-new-england-v-braintree-w-st-ry-co-circtdma-1899.