Home/Supreme Court/Snow v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.

Snow v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.

121 U.S. 617, 7 S. Ct. 1343, 30 L. Ed. 1004, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2079
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 2, 1887
Docket234
StatusPublished
Cited by58 cases

This text of 121 U.S. 617 (Snow v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway 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
Snow v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co., 121 U.S. 617, 7 S. Ct. 1343, 30 L. Ed. 1004, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2079 (1887).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Matthews

delivered the "opinion of the court.

The appellants, who were complainants below, filed their bill in equity August 7, 1882, against the defendant, to restrain the alleged infringement of letters-patent No. 127,933, granted to the Buffalo Dental Manufacturing Company, as assignee of George B. Snow, on June 11, 1872, for a new and *618 useful improvement in steam bell-ringers; the Buffalo Dental Manufacturing Company being a joint stock association under the laws of the state of New York, of which the appellants were the sole officers, directors, shareholders, associates, and persons in interest. The specifications, with drawings annexed, of this patent are as follows:

“Specification describing certain Improvements in Steam Bell-Ringing Apparatus, invented by George B. Snow, of Buffalo, in the county of Erie, state of New York.
“ This invention relates to the construction of a steam bell-ringer in such a manner as to prevent any apparent leakage, either of water or steam, without resorting to the use of stuffing-boxes; and, also, to cause the'admission and release of the steam directly by the motion of the piston, and without the use of any intermediate parts between the piston and valves.
“Referring to the annexed draNing,'Figure 1 [page 620] is an elevation of the device as applied to the bell of a locomotive. Fig. 2 [page 621] is a vertical section of the steam-cylinder on the plane a b, on an enlarged scale.
“ A is a single-acting steam-cylinder, connected to the crank B on the bell-yoke by the slotted rod O. This rod should be of such a length that the piston G will be forced" to the bottom of the cylinder as the crank B passes its lower centre, the slot through which the crank-pin passes being long enough to allow the crank to pass its upper centre freely, notwithstanding the disproportion between the throw of the crank B and the length of stroke of the piston-rod D. The piston G is disconnected from its rod D, to prevent any lateral strain being communicated to it, thereby decreasing to some extent the •wear of the piston in the cylinder. The piston should be considerably longer than its length of stroke. The piston-rod D passes through a sleeve in the cylinder-cover I, which should be long enough to steady it and act as a guide, and is limited in its upward motion by the collar d. E is a conical exhaust-valve, seating upward against the-bottom of the piston G. F is the steam-valve, also conical, and seating upward, containing within itself the tail of the exhaust-valve E, *619 such an amount of motion being permitted between the two that the steam-valve F will be raised to its seat and the exhaust-valve E be opened as the piston approaches the upper end of its stroke. Exhaust-passages M m are formed in the piston Ct, which communicate with the holes m! in the side of the cylinder by means of annular grooves turned in the side of the piston, the openings m' being of such a number and so disposed as to insure a constant communication with the passage M. The thimble H forms an annular space around the cylinder, from which the steam escapes through the passage O. If the piston is closely fitted, it will wear a long time with very little leakage, and what there may be will be caught in the annular grooves in the side of the piston, and passed at once through the exhaust-passages m', thus preventing -any leakage around the piston-rod D. It is advisable to use a packing of a single ring at the lower part of the piston, not so much to avoid leakage as to sustain the piston at the upper end of its stroke by the elasticity of the ring, until it is brought to the bottom of the cylinder by the return swing of the bell.
“ The bell being set in motion, the crank B drives the piston to the bottom of the cylinder, • closing the exhaust-valve and forcing open the steam-valve, admitting steam to the cylinder from the space S. As the piston is driven upward the exhaust-valve is carried with it, and as the piston approaches the end of its stroke the steam-valve is also raised to its seat, after which the exhaust-valve is opened. As the pressure is relieved, the exhaust-valve drops, leaving the passage M entirely clear during the return stroke, which is made by the momentum of1 the bell on its return.
“ The arrangement of valves shown is not essential, as the exhaust-valve may be placed in a cavity in. the body of tho cylinder opening into the exhaust-passage, and both the steam and exhaust-valves be closed by the direct impulse of the steam, the openings m' being made low enough in the cylinder to allow the piston to pass them at the upper end of the stroke; or, by using a piston in the form of an inverted cup, the steam and exhaust may be worked through openings in the side of the piston and cylinder, the expansion of the steam
*620

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

Related

Tippmann Engineering, LLC v. Innovative Refrigeration Systems, Inc.
Federal Circuit, 2023
Agarwal v. Morbark, LLC
E.D. Michigan, 2021
SME Steel Contractors v. Seismic Bracing
D. Utah, 2020
Noco Company, Inc. v. Smartech Products, Inc,.
N.D. Ohio, 2020
Ice Castles, LLC v. LaBelle Lake Ice Palace, LLC
D. Idaho, 2020
MedIdea, L.L.C. v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.
D. Massachusetts, 2019
Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
976 F. Supp. 2d 794 (E.D. Virginia, 2013)
SFA Systems, LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc.
940 F. Supp. 2d 433 (E.D. Texas, 2013)
Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross
415 F.3d 1303 (Federal Circuit, 2006)
Pioneer Laboratories, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.
395 F. Supp. 2d 612 (W.D. Michigan, 2005)
Nystrom v. Trex Company, Inc.
424 F.3d 1136 (Federal Circuit, 2005)
Phillips v. Awh Corporation
Federal Circuit, 2005
Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
775 F.2d 1107 (Federal Circuit, 1985)
Coleco Industries, Inc. v. International Trade Commission
573 F.2d 1247 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1978)
Coleco Industries, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission
573 F.2d 1247 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1978)
Westwood Chemical, Inc. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
317 F. Supp. 201 (N.D. Ohio, 1970)
Wilcox Manufacturing Company v. Eastern Gas and Fuel Associates, Jeffrey Galion Manufacturing Company v. Wilcox Manufacturing Company
400 F.2d 960 (Fourth Circuit, 1969)
Henry J. Kaiser Company v. McLouth Steel Corp.
257 F. Supp. 372 (E.D. Michigan, 1966)
Oregon Saw Chain Corporation, a Corporation v. McCulloch Motors Corporation, a Corporation
323 F.2d 758 (Ninth Circuit, 1963)
M & R Dietetic Laboratories, Inc. v. Dean Milk Co.
203 F. Supp. 130 (N.D. Illinois, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 U.S. 617, 7 S. Ct. 1343, 30 L. Ed. 1004, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snow-v-lake-shore-michigan-southern-railway-co-scotus-1887.