Phoenix Caster Co. v. Spiegel

133 U.S. 360, 10 S. Ct. 409, 33 L. Ed. 663, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1917
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 3, 1890
Docket150
StatusPublished
Cited by39 cases

This text of 133 U.S. 360 (Phoenix Caster Co. v. Spiegel) 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
Phoenix Caster Co. v. Spiegel, 133 U.S. 360, 10 S. Ct. 409, 33 L. Ed. 663, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1917 (1890).

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 Phoenix Caster Company, an Indiana corporation, against Augustus Spiegel, Henry Frank and Frederick Thoms, to recover for the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 190,152, granted May 1, 1877, on an application filed September 16, 1876, to Alexander C. Martin, for an improvement in furniture casters.”

*361 The specification, claim and drawings oi the patent are as follows : “This invention relates to swivelling casters, and the objects of the invention are to secure in such casters freedom from pivotal wear of carpet or floor and increased mobility in swivelling. The first, object is attained by the use of two floor-wheels whose ' axes are coincident, in' connection with devices which insure the contact of both Wheels with the floor, regardless of ordinary irregularities of floor surface. The second object of the invention is a natural result of the suppression of floor friction. In the accompanying drawing, Fig. 1 is an elevation of my improved caster. Part of Fig. 1 is a vertical section. Fig. 2 is a side elevation, and Fig. 3 is a part elevation, exhibiting the portion cut away .in Fig. 1. Common casters, in swivelling, pivot upon the floor. The point of pivot ■motion is the point of contact between wheel and floor. Such pucker and wear carpets, and are sluggish fin their swivelling action. Two rollers side by side will, in swivelling, turn in opposite directions, and it will be found that they roll upon the floor instead of pivoting, as does the single wheel; but if the floor should be irregular, as is often' the case, one wheel of the pair would not touch the floor, and the two-wheeled caster would become pratically a one-wheeled caster. My improvement consists in making the axis of the two wheels oscillatory with reference to the article to which the furniture caster is attached. The axis of oscillation, being at right angles to the floor-wheels’ axis, allows the wheels to accommodate themselves to ordinary inequalities of floor. Referring to the- drawing, A is a flange, from which depends the stem .or boss C. • This stem serves as a pivot for the swivelling motion, as a draft-pin for the wheel-housing, and as a means of uniting the parts. The housing B furnishes bearing supports for the two floor-wheels EE and the anti-friction pivot-wheel F. 'The latter wheel is situated centrally between and vertically above the floor-wheels. The housing' swivels upon the stem in the usual manner.- Were only a swivelling motion of the housing desired, its fit upon the central pivot might be close, allowing only looseness enough for the swivelling action; but the object sought by my improvement demands that the *362 housing should have a compound motion with reference to the central pivot. It must revolve upon a vertical axis and oscillate upon a horizontal axis. This compound bearing is formed by making the housing bearing slightly elliptical and the housing collar bearing in rocker form, as shown in Fig. 3. The rocker may be on the side of the hole nearest the anti-friction wheel or on the opposite side, and the axis of the rocker should be in line with, and a continuation of, the axis of the anti-friction wheel F, so that the anti-friction wheel may not impede the oscillating motion. By means of the relief -resulting from the elliptic nature of the housing opening and the rocker bearing, freedom for oscillation is secured without interfering with the functions of the central pivot as a bearing of rotation, draft-pin and means of union. I claim

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

Related

State v. Levengood
2016 Ohio 1340 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
State v. Methvin
2014 Ohio 590 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)
State v. Brooks
2013 Ohio 3505 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)
Henry J. Kaiser Company v. McLouth Steel Corp.
257 F. Supp. 372 (E.D. Michigan, 1966)
Palmer v. Sun Oil Co.
78 F. Supp. 38 (N.D. Ohio, 1948)
Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co.
311 U.S. 211 (Supreme Court, 1940)
Gellman v. Oliver Machinery Co.
18 F. Supp. 383 (W.D. Michigan, 1935)
Power v. Mola Washing Mach. Co.
49 F.2d 1009 (Eighth Circuit, 1931)
Dry Hand Mop Co. v. Squeez-Ezy Mop Co.
17 F.2d 465 (Fifth Circuit, 1927)
Townsend v. Lorraine
283 F. 806 (S.D. California, 1922)
Superior Skylight Co. v. August Kuhnla, Inc.
265 F. 282 (E.D. New York, 1920)
Robert v. Krementz
243 F. 877 (Third Circuit, 1917)
Cotto-Waxo Chemical Co. v. Perolin Co. of America
185 F. 267 (Eighth Circuit, 1911)
Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. American Graphophone Co.
145 F. 189 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 U.S. 360, 10 S. Ct. 409, 33 L. Ed. 663, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phoenix-caster-co-v-spiegel-scotus-1890.