Home/Supreme Court/Joyce v. Chillicothe Foundry

Joyce v. Chillicothe Foundry

127 U.S. 557, 8 S. Ct. 1311, 32 L. Ed. 171, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2018
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 14, 1888
Docket149
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 127 U.S. 557 (Joyce v. Chillicothe Foundry) 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
Joyce v. Chillicothe Foundry, 127 U.S. 557, 8 S. Ct. 1311, 32 L. Ed. 171, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2018 (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 Southern District of Ohio, by Jacob O. Joyce against the Chillicothe Foundry and Machine Works Company and F. M.. De Weese, to recover for the infringement of letters patent of the United States, No. 154,989, granted to Jacob O. Joyce, September 15, 1874, for an improvement in lifting-jacks, on an application filed March 16, 1874.

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

“Be it known that I, Jacob O. Joyce, of Carlisle Station, Warren County, Ohio, have invented certain improvements in lever-jacks, of which the following is a specification:
“ My invention relates to the pawl of such jacks; and its objects are, first, to substitute the weight of the pawl, sliding in inclined slots, grooves, or guides, for the elastic spring usually employed to press it against the teeth of the ratchet-bar; and, second, to obtain greater strength by dividing the load among several teeth of the pawl and ratchet-bar, instead of supporting it all on one tooth, as is .commonly done.
“Figure 1 of the accompanying drawings [see next page] is a vertical section of so much of a jack as is necessary to show my improvements; and Fig. 2 is a modification of the same, in which the pins and slots .of Fig. 1 are exchanged for the tongue and groove in Fig. 2.
*559 No.l.

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

Related

Hendrix v. City of Seattle
456 P.2d 696 (Washington Supreme Court, 1969)
Campbell Printing-Press & Manufacturing Co. v. Duplex Printing-Press Co.
86 F. 315 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 U.S. 557, 8 S. Ct. 1311, 32 L. Ed. 171, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joyce-v-chillicothe-foundry-scotus-1888.