Newton v. Furst & Bradley Co.

119 U.S. 373, 7 S. Ct. 369, 30 L. Ed. 442, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 2001
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedDecember 13, 1886
Docket73
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 119 U.S. 373 (Newton v. Furst & Bradley 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
Newton v. Furst & Bradley Co., 119 U.S. 373, 7 S. Ct. 369, 30 L. Ed. 442, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 2001 (1886).

Opinion

Mb. Justice Blatcheobd

delivered the opinion of the .conrt.

This is a suit in equity brought in the Circuit Court of the' United States for the Northern District of Illinois by Bobert-Newton against the .Furst and Bradley Manufacturing Company and others, to recover for the infringement Of reissued letters-patent No. 8986, granted to the plaintiff, December 2d, 1879, on an application, filed October 15th, 1879, for an improvement in gang-ploughs, (the original patent, No. 56,812, having been granted to F. S. Davenport, as inventor, October 9th, 1866).

The specification and claims of the original, and those of the reissue, and the drawings of the reissue, are as follows, the parts in each which are not found in the other being in' italic:

Original.
Be it' known that I, F. S. Davenport, of Jerseyville, Jersey county, and State of Illinois, have invented a new and improved plough; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear, and exact description ^thereof,'which will enable others skilled in the art to make and use the' same, reference being had to the accompanying drawings, [p. 376] forming part of this-specification, in which
Reissue.
Be it known that I, F. S. Davenport, of Jerseyville, Jersey county, and State of Illinois, have invented a new and improved loAeei-plough; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear, and exact description thereof, which will enable others skilled in the art to make and use the same, reference being had to the acompanying drawings, forming part of this specification. [See page 376.]
*375 The object of my mvenUon' is to provide i/mpi'oved means for utilizing the d/raft of the team in raising a plough from' the ground / <md to this end my invention consists, first, in the combination, with a swing- ' axle cmd ground or ca/rrying-wheel, of friction-clutch mechanism and means f tir engaging and disengaging the latter with the ground or carrying-wheel, sand parts being constructed and adapted to raÁse the plough by loclcing the swing-axle to the ca/rrying-wheel by friction-clutch engage/nent, and raise the plough-beam by the d/raft or power of the team j second, in the combination, with a ground-wheel, a swing-axle, and a plough-beam connected with the latter, of clutch mechanism connected to the axle and adapted by engagement with the wheel to utilize the draft of the team, 'in turning the swing-axle into ■ upright position, and thereby raise the plough-beam ; third, in the combination, with a ground-wheel, a swing-axle,' and a ploughhbeam connected to the latter, of a friction-cl/utch connected to the axle and adapted, by contact with the wheel, to i/urn the a/xl^into upright position, and thereby raise the plough-beam by the aid of the draft of the team.

*376

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

Related

Sontag Chain Stores Co. v. National Nut Co. of Cal.
310 U.S. 281 (Supreme Court, 1940)
Bilque v. Merry Bros. Brick & Tile Co.
1 F. Supp. 261 (S.D. Georgia, 1932)
Denaro v. Maryland Baking Co.
40 F.2d 513 (D. Maryland, 1930)
Pierce v. Bell
239 F. 549 (S.D. New York, 1917)
Manly v. Williams
37 D.C. App. 194 (D.C. Circuit, 1911)
Bechman v. Wood
15 App. D.C. 484 (D.C. Circuit, 1899)
Knapp v. Morss
150 U.S. 221 (Supreme Court, 1893)
Topliff v. Topliff
145 U.S. 156 (Supreme Court, 1892)
Electric Gas-Lighting Co. v. Boston Electric Co.
139 U.S. 481 (Supreme Court, 1891)
Sackett v. Smith
42 F. 846 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1890)
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. 373, 7 S. Ct. 369, 30 L. Ed. 442, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 2001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newton-v-furst-bradley-co-scotus-1886.