Home/Supreme Court/New Process Fermentation Co. v. Maus

New Process Fermentation Co. v. Maus

122 U.S. 413, 7 S. Ct. 1304, 30 L. Ed. 1193, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2120
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 27, 1887
Docket298
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 122 U.S. 413 (New Process Fermentation Co. v. Maus) 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
New Process Fermentation Co. v. Maus, 122 U.S. 413, 7 S. Ct. 1304, 30 L. Ed. 1193, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2120 (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 Indiana, by the New Process Fermentation Company, an Illinois corporation, against Magdalena Maus, Albert C. Maus, Casper J. Maus, Frank A. Maus, and Mathias A. Maus, for the infringement of letters-patent No. 215,679, granted May 20, 1879, to George Bartholomae,. as assignee of Leonard Meller and Edmund Hofmann, as inventors, for an “improvement in processes for making beer,” subject to the limitation prescribed by‘§4887 of the Revised Statutes, by reason of the invention’s having been patented in *414 France, November, 30, 1876, and in Belgium, February 28, 1877. The specification and drawing and claims Of the patent are as follows:

“ To all whom it may concern:
“ Be it known that we, Leonard Meller, of Ludwigshafenon-the-Bhine, in the state of Bavaria, and Edmund Hofmann, of Mannheim, in the state of Baden, Germany, have invented certain new and useful improvements .in the .art of making beer, and we hereby declare the following to be a full, clear, and exact description thereof, reference being had to the accompanying drawing, making a part of this specification, in which the figure represents an end view of our - apparatus, with the water column in section.
“Heretofore, in brewing beer, after cooking and cooling, the beer has been put into open vessels to ferment. The fermentation lasts, say fifteen days, and then the beer is drawn off from the yeast into large casks nearly closed, where it remains from one to six months to settle, and among the sediment there will still remain some yeast. The beer is then pumped into shavings casks and, is mixed with young beer, (kraeusen,) which starts a mild fermentation, lasting from ten to fifteen days, until the generation of the gas is reduced to a minimurh. During this fermentation the beer effervesces through means of the carbonic acid gas rising, and the lighter particles of yeast and solid matter are thrown to the top, forming a foam, which, during the ebullition, runs over the edges of the opening in the cask, and carrying along a small portion (more or less) of the beer, which is wasted, and this waste has to be replaced by refilling with new beer daily. This wastage we estimate, from practical experience in t% manufacture, to be about oné barrel in every forty, more or less. This waste beer, running down around the casks and on the floor of the cellars, sours and produces a mildew, which impregnates the air with foul vapors highly injurious to the workmen, and, .permeating the beer in the casks, alters its flavor and, in instances where the mildew penetrates-the wood of the casks, spoils’the beer entirely. This fouling of the barrels requires that they should be washed outside, from time to

*415

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

Related

Application of Zoltan TARCZYHORNOCH
397 F.2d 856 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1968)
Achen v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co.
233 P.2d 74 (California Court of Appeal, 1951)
Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. Pangborn Corporation
186 F.2d 230 (Fourth Circuit, 1950)
Cox v. Doherty
44 F. Supp. 357 (S.D. California, 1942)
Oxford Varnish Corp. v. General Motors Corp.
120 F.2d 44 (Sixth Circuit, 1941)
In re Walch
87 F.2d 511 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1937)
City of Milwaukee v. Activated Sludge, Inc.
69 F.2d 577 (Seventh Circuit, 1934)
San Francisco Cornice Co. v. Beyrle
195 F. 516 (Ninth Circuit, 1912)
Manhattan General Const. Co. v. Helios-Upton Co.
135 F. 785 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1905)
Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co.
185 U.S. 403 (Supreme Court, 1902)
Parrot Silver & Copper Co. v. Heinze
64 P. 326 (Montana Supreme Court, 1901)
In re Weston
17 D.C. App. 431 (D.C. Circuit, 1901)
Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. Medart
158 U.S. 68 (Supreme Court, 1895)
Featherstone v. George R. Bidwell Cycle Co.
53 F. 113 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1892)
Consolidated Bunging Apparatus Co. v. H. Clausen & Son Brewing Co.
39 F. 277 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1889)
Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Company
126 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1888)
Celluloid Manuf'g Co. v. American Zylonite Co.
31 F. 904 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
122 U.S. 413, 7 S. Ct. 1304, 30 L. Ed. 1193, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-process-fermentation-co-v-maus-scotus-1887.