Home/Supreme Court/Peters v. Hanson

Peters v. Hanson

129 U.S. 541, 9 S. Ct. 393, 32 L. Ed. 742, 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1710
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 5, 1889
Docket66
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 129 U.S. 541 (Peters v. Hanson) 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
Peters v. Hanson, 129 U.S. 541, 9 S. Ct. 393, 32 L. Ed. 742, 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1710 (1889).

Opinion

/Mr. Justice BlatchfoRd

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit in' equity,- brought by George M. Peters, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana, against Julius A. Hanson and 'Cortland C. Yan Camp, for the alleged infringement of two létters patent granted, .to George- M. Peters, the plaintiif, namely, letters patent No. *543 813,529, granted March 25, 1879, for an improvement in vehicle dashes, on an application filed June 19, 1875, and reissued letters patent No. 9891, for improvements in vehicle dash-frames, granted October 11, 1881, on the surrender of original letters patent No. 224,792, granted February 24,1880, on an application filed May 5, 1879, the reissue having been applied for June 15, 1881.

The answer sets up as to both patents want of novelty and patentability, non-infringemént, and the invalidity of the reissue, because it has been expanded beyond the invention disclosed in the original patent, and contains new matter not found in that patent, and is for a different invention.

There was a replication to the answer, proofs were taken and the Circuit Court dismissed the bill. The plaintiff has appealed from the decree. ¥e are not furnished with any opinion given by the Circuit Court stating the ground for its action, but it said, in the brief for the appellant, that the ground was that the inventions were not patentable.

So much, of the specification of No. 213,529 as is material, and the drawings referred to in it, are as follows:

“My invention relates, . . . secondly, to the attachment of the dash to the vehicle"; and this part of my invention renders the dash capable of attachment to vehicles of different widths, ,so that it can be sold as an article of manufactUre, for application to the vehicle by the purchaser. These features of my, invention render the construction easy, expeditious, and economical. Another feature of my invention consists in such a novel construction of the dash as that there shall be at the part of the frame thereof to which the laterally-adjustable foot is to be attached a proper bearing surface for the support and bracing of the dash.
“ In the accompanying drawings, which form a part of this specification, figure 1 is a perspective view of sufficient of a vehicle to illustrate my invention; Fig. 2, a sectional detached view; Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, detached views illustrating modifications, and Fig. 7, a detached perspective view.
“ One mode of making the dash-frame is shown in the drawings, in which G F are parallel uprights at each end, 0 *544 D E parallel cross-rods, and M L short continuations of the rods Gr F. '. . . In order to connect the frame to the vehicle, and further to permit a frame to be applied to vehicles of different sizes, I construct the frame and the foot H so that, by a lateral adjustment in relation to each other, the desiréd connection to bodies of different widths may be effected. The frames may be varied in construction to effect this result. Thus, in Figs. 1 and 2 the frame has a wide bearing piece N, of any desired length, with a slot to' receive the fastenings of the foot or attachment H, by which the dash and. the body of the vehicle are connected adjustably, so that, within the limits of the adjustment, the foot secured to the dash may find its bearings on bodies of various widths. The foot may be of any desired shape, being shown with two branches b d, one bolted or otherwise secured to the dash, and the other to the body I of the vehicle. By the above-described means the dashes may be furnished to the trade as independent articles of manufacture, as the foot may be fitted to vehicles in the process of ponstruction o’r afterward, and the dash secured without altering or moving it. For the like reason the feet adapted to the vehicles and dashes may be sold separately.
“ The bearing N for the attachment or foot may be within the frame, as shown in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8, or it may be in an extension outside of the frame, the result being the same — i.e., the frame being adapted to be secured without change to bodies of different widths. This bearing portion N may be secured permanently or detachably to the frame bars. Thus in Figs. 1 and 2 it is provided with sockets for the reception of studs at the ends of the bars. In any case it affords a strong and rigid connection between the foot and the frame, so that the latter cannot be bent ovér under anything less than destructive pressure. This is especially the case when both uprights, F and G, are secured to the bearing piece N, whether within or without the frame proper; but when within the frame, and extending up between the uprights, it stiffens • and braces the latter.
“The adjustment of the dash and foot is not necessarily limited to the mode described. For instance, it may be-
*545

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

Related

Exer-Genie, Inc., and E. E. Holkesvick v. Alexander G. McDonald and Buddy Systems, Inc.
453 F.2d 132 (Ninth Circuit, 1972)
Spring-Air Co. v. Ragains
96 F. Supp. 79 (W.D. Michigan, 1951)
Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America v. United States
320 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1943)
Continental Machines, Inc. v. Grob
137 F.2d 470 (Eighth Circuit, 1943)
Marconi Wireless Co. v. United States
320 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1943)
Pevely Dairy Co. v. Borden Printing Co.
123 F.2d 17 (Ninth Circuit, 1941)
Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Schwarze Electric Co.
108 F.2d 352 (Sixth Circuit, 1939)
Detroit Stoker Co. v. Brownell Co.
89 F.2d 422 (Sixth Circuit, 1937)
United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. Brooklyn Wood Heel Corp.
6 F. Supp. 793 (E.D. New York, 1934)
Wailes Dove-Hermiston Corp. v. Oklahoma Contracting Co.
48 F.2d 901 (N.D. Texas, 1931)
In re Tucker
46 F.2d 214 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1931)
Paquette v. Potter Mfg. Co.
46 F.2d 271 (Sixth Circuit, 1931)
Chicago Fuse Mfg. Co. v. Roach-Appleton Mfg. Co.
6 F.2d 827 (Seventh Circuit, 1925)
Kalamazoo Loose Leaf Binder Co. v. Wilson Jones Loose Leaf Co.
286 F. 715 (S.D. New York, 1920)
Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v. United States Light & Heating Co.
222 F. 318 (W.D. New York, 1914)
Positive Lock Washer Co. v. Reliance Mfg. Co.
214 F. 134 (N.D. Ohio, 1913)
Boss Mfg. Co. v. Thomas
182 F. 811 (Eighth Circuit, 1910)
Smyth Mfg. Co. v. Sheridan
149 F. 208 (Second Circuit, 1906)
Koerner v. Deuther
143 F. 544 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York, 1906)
Knapp v. Morss
150 U.S. 221 (Supreme Court, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 U.S. 541, 9 S. Ct. 393, 32 L. Ed. 742, 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peters-v-hanson-scotus-1889.