Home/Supreme Court/Royer v. Schultz Belting Co.

Royer v. Schultz Belting Co.

135 U.S. 319, 10 S. Ct. 833, 34 L. Ed. 214, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2026
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 5, 1890
Docket228
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 135 U.S. 319 (Royer v. Schultz Belting 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
Royer v. Schultz Belting Co., 135 U.S. 319, 10 S. Ct. 833, 34 L. Ed. 214, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2026 (1890).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Blatchford

delivered the opinion of the court.

This, is an action at law, brought in the Circuit Court of the United States-for the Eastern District of Missouri, by Herman Eoyer against The Schultz Belting Company, a Missouri corporation, for the infringement-of letters patent No. 77,920', granted May 12, 1868, to Herman Eoyer and Louis Eoyer, as inventors, for “ an improved machine for treating raw hide.” The patent expired on May 12, 1885, and this suit was brought on the 16th of November, 1885.

The specification, claims and drawings are as follows :

*320 “;The nature of our invention is to provide an improved machine for converting raw hides into leather, of that class which is used for belting, lacings and other purposes where it is necessary to preserve the native strength and toughness without destroying or impairing the natural fibres or grain of the leather.
“ In order to accomplish our object, we employ a machine mounted on a suitable frame, having a vertical slotted shaft, to which is attached, at its base, a bevelled wheel between two bevelled pinions upon a horizontal shaft. Around the vertical shaft is placed a row of vertical pins or rollers, held in place by upper and lower rings, one of which is firmly bolted to the frame. An iron weight or press is employed fc~ crowding the coil of hide down after it has received the foi ward and back action around the shaft.
“ To more fully illustrate and describe our invention, reference is had to the accompanying drawings, of which figure 1 is a horizontal section through A B; figure 2, a side sectional elevation, showing central shaft ; figure 3, a side sectional elevation ; figure 4, a horizontal section, showing the hide around the shaft in the circle of pins.
' “.A represents the frame, of any suitable materials, up through which the vertical shaft B passes, having a slot, B', through which the end of the hide is placed, where it is held in place by the set-screws b b b b. C C C are vertical pins or rollers set in the rings D and D', the lower one, or D', being firmly attached to the frame by bolts o a. A bevelled wheel, E,-is attached to the vertical shaft B, which is actuated by the bevelled pinions F F placed on the horizontal driving-shaft G. This shaft has a pulley, H, for driving the machine. An iron weight, I, having an opening through its centre for the vertical shaft, and vertical grooves, i i, in it to prevent its turning, is placed upon' the inside of the pins or rollers, and, by pressing upon this weight, the hide is compressed edgewise, after the forward and backward stretching or pressing is performed lengthwise.
• “ The operation of our machine is as follows: The end of the raw hide, after it has been deprived of the hair, is intro *321 duced into the slot B', and the set-screws bbb turned against it, when motion is imparted to the machine, and the hide is wound tightly around the vertical shaft, When this is accomplished, and sufficient time has elapsed,, the shaft is slowly-reversed by throwing the other pinion into gear, when the

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

Related

Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc.
62 F.3d 1512 (Federal Circuit, 1995)
Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates Inc. v. Sands Hotel & Casino, Inc.
131 P.R. Dec. 21 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1992)
Malta v. Schulmerich Carillons, Inc.
952 F.2d 1320 (Federal Circuit, 1992)
Sun Studs, Inc. v. Ata Equipment Leasing, Inc., Applied Theory, Inc. And U.S. Natural Resources, Inc., Defendants/cross-Appellants
872 F.2d 978 (Federal Circuit, 1989)
Pennwalt Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant
833 F.2d 931 (Federal Circuit, 1987)
Royal Typewriter Co. v. Remington Rand, Inc.
168 F.2d 691 (Second Circuit, 1948)
McRoskey v. Braun Mattress Co.
107 F.2d 143 (Ninth Circuit, 1939)
United Gas Public Service Co. v. Texas
303 U.S. 123 (Supreme Court, 1938)
United States v. Esnault-Pelterie
299 U.S. 201 (Supreme Court, 1936)
Claude Neon Lights, Inc. v. E. MacHlett & Son
36 F.2d 574 (Second Circuit, 1929)
Hurin v. Electric Vacuum Cleaner Co.
298 F. 76 (Sixth Circuit, 1924)
Automatic Pencil Sharpener Co. v. Boston Pencil Pointer Co.
279 F. 40 (First Circuit, 1922)
Transit Development Co. v. Cheatham Electric Switching Device Co.
194 F. 963 (Second Circuit, 1912)
Heide v. Panoulias
188 F. 914 (Second Circuit, 1911)
Overweight Counterbalance Elevator Co. v. Improved Order of Red Men's Hall Ass'n
94 F. 155 (Ninth Circuit, 1899)
McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. C. Aultman & Co.
69 F. 371 (Sixth Circuit, 1895)
Coupe v. Royer
155 U.S. 565 (Supreme Court, 1895)
De Loriea v. Whitney
63 F. 611 (First Circuit, 1894)
Harmon v. Struthers
57 F. 637 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania, 1893)
Royer v. Shultz Belting Co.
45 F. 51 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 U.S. 319, 10 S. Ct. 833, 34 L. Ed. 214, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royer-v-schultz-belting-co-scotus-1890.