Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Co.

113 U.S. 59, 5 S. Ct. 717, 28 L. Ed. 901, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1651
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 5, 1885
StatusPublished
Cited by193 cases

This text of 113 U.S. 59 (Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing 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
Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Co., 113 U.S. 59, 5 S. Ct. 717, 28 L. Ed. 901, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1651 (1885).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Matthews

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a bill in equity to enjoin the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 93, 391, issued to Edward A. Locke for certain improvements in identifying revenue marks or labels, dated August 3, 1869, the appellees being assignees of the patentee, *61 and the appellant, the collector of internal revenue for the Second Collection District of Connecticut.

The specification and claims, with the accompanying drawings, are as follows:

“ This invention is designed more especially for use in sealing liquor casks with identifying marks or labels for revenue purposes, and in such a manner that while truly designating the contents of the cask, or giving such other indication as may be demanded, they cannot be fraudulently removed.
“ Fig. 1 represents a printed paper revenue stamp, the circular portion at the right hand being-the stamp proper, which is applied to the cask or box, and the portion at the left hand being the ‘ stub,’ or that portion retained by the government official. *62 Fig. 2 represents a separate strip, which is shown in Fig. 1 as attached at its left end to the stub of the paper stamp proper, in such manner that its coupons may be readily cut off and permanently affixed to the stamp proper when the latter is secured to the cask. Fig. 3 represents a metallic piece or strip, shown as detached, and before being applied to the stamp.
“ The main body of the sheet of paper being printed substantially as shown, so as to designate by a letter of the alphabet, or otherwise, the appropriate series, and with blanks for the particular number of each series, and also with a number indicating numbers of gallons, &c., in tens, has also a series of numbers, from one to nine, inclusive, any one of which may be punched out by the proper official, in accordance -with the actual number of gallons contained in the vessel. Thus, if 126 be the propers number of gallons, and 120 be the whole number printed upon the particular stamp, the officer, in order to indicate 126, would punch through the digital number 6, both upon the circular stamp, and upon its £ stub ’ or counter-check.
The piece shown in Fig. 3 I prefer to make of thin metal, because more readily embossed or impressed with permanent or ineffaceable characters, and because less destructible in handling and transmission; after it shall have been torn away from the stamp. This piece (also shown in part' in Fig. 1) may be conveniently made of oblong, or any appropriate form, its conditions being merely, so far as concerns its shape, that it be of sufficient size to extend beyond the opening made in the paper for the exposure of the letters and figures made on it, and be capable of being retained in its place between the paper and another backing-piece of paper, the two pieces of paper being gummed together for this purpose. This backing-piece I prepare with dried gum on its outer face, that the stamp may be always ready by merely moistening the gum for instant application to the cask.
££ The strip shown in Fig. 2 I secure in part to the left side of the paper, by gumming its remaining portion, upon which are coupons for the units, being dry-gummecl on its under side, so that when the proper number of gallons has been deter *63 mined, the officer, upon cutting off the coupons at the figure designating the unit or digital number required, may, by moistening it, instantly, and without cutting or injuring the stamp, apply it to the stamp, while the stub or remaining portion of the slip will correspondingly indicate thereon just' what has been so detached and applied to the stamp. Thus, to indicate ■ ,126 gallons, 120 being the wThole number of the stamp, the coupon slip is cut off between the numbers 6 and 7, and the piece so cut off is moistened on the back and permanently attached to the face of the stamp, the 6 being the significant figure of the coupon.
“ The mode of applying a stamp so made to a cask may be, by way of greater protection against liability to damage or accident, as shown and described in my patent No. 58,847— that is, by boring a shallow depression in the wood of the cask or case, and after affixing the stamp by its gum to the bottom of this depression, then placing over it a ring having down-turned edges, and, by pressing the same, forcing its outer edge into the wood. Or the wood may have an annular groove cut therein to receive the edge of the ring when so forced home.
“ Instead of making the removable piece out of metal, or of making it in a piece separate from the stamp, it may be made of the same piece of paper of which the stamp is composed, by simply having its .outline perforated after the manner .of postage stamps, but ungummed at its back, so as readily to be torn away and detached from the stamp. ‘
“ Although I have shown • and described a lining-paper, between Avhich and the stamp or surface-paper the metal slip is held, yet I may dispense with' such lining and employ a thicker paper for the stamp, the metal strip in such cases, if preferred, • being confined or held to it by having its ends pass through slits made in the paper for such purpose. Or the metal piece may have points or projections at its ends or corners, or elseAvhere, Avhich may be forced or passed through the paper and clinched on the under side.
“ For the purpose of readily separating the circular stamp from the sheet, I perforate it about its periphery with any *64 suitable slits, cuts, or openings adapted to the thickness or texture of the paper. I also prefer to have ’ the stamps prepared with blanks and dotted lines, on which the collector, gauger, and storekeeper may place their signatures, as shown in Fig. 1.
“ It is to be understood that the metallic or other slip, the stub or check part of the stamp paper, and also the stub of the coupon piece, are all to be consecutively numbered alike for each alphabetical series, the capital letter A in the drawings indicating the alphabetical series, and the number immediately to the right thereof indicating a number in the consecutive numbers of such series.
“ For convenience I prefer to have the stamps, after being printed, bound up in book form, after the manner of merchants’ or bankers’ check books, so that each stamp, as cut out, shall leave in .the book its corresponding marginal piece or stub, having thereon a record of letters, figures, marks, «feo,, according with those upon such stamps.
“ I claim—
“ 1. A stamp, the body of which is made of paper or other suitable material, and having a removable slip of metal or other material, displaying thereon a serial number or other specific identifying mark corresponding with a similar mark upon the stub, and so attached that the removal of such slip must mutilate or destroy the stamp.
“ 2.

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

Related

Edward A. Zegers v. Zegers, Inc.
365 F.2d 156 (Seventh Circuit, 1966)
Foster v. United States
98 F. Supp. 349 (Court of Claims, 1951)
Parker Appliance Co. v. Irvin W. Masters, Inc.
94 F. Supp. 72 (S.D. California, 1950)
Keuffel & Esser Co. v. Pickett & Eckel, Inc.
182 F.2d 581 (Seventh Circuit, 1950)
Cotton Land Co. v. United States
75 F. Supp. 232 (Court of Claims, 1948)
Vischer Products Co. v. National Pressure Cooker Co.
71 F. Supp. 973 (W.D. Wisconsin, 1947)
United States v. Causby
328 U.S. 256 (Supreme Court, 1946)
Crosley Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.
152 F.2d 895 (Third Circuit, 1945)
Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States
323 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1945)
Toledo Pressed Steel Co. v. Standard Parts, Inc.
307 U.S. 350 (Supreme Court, 1939)
Honolulu Oil Corp. v. Halliburton
306 U.S. 550 (Supreme Court, 1939)
Paramount Publix Corp. v. American Triergon Corp.
294 U.S. 464 (Supreme Court, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 U.S. 59, 5 S. Ct. 717, 28 L. Ed. 901, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollister-v-benedict-burnham-manufacturing-co-scotus-1885.