Steam-Gauge & Lantern Co. v. McRoberts

U.S. Circuit Court

Steam-Gauge & Lantern Co. v. McRoberts

26 F. 765, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2005

DecidedJanuary 25, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 26 F. 765 (Steam-Gauge & Lantern Co. v. McRoberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steam-Gauge & Lantern Co. v. McRoberts, 26 F. 765, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2005 (uscirct 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Blodgett, J.

Nine exceptions are filed to the bill by the St. Louis Railway Supplies Manufacturing Company, one of the defendants in this case. The first, second, third, fourth, and tenth are applicable to so much of the bill as sets out the successive steps of John H. Irwin, tho inventor of what is known as the “Tubular Lantern,” or a lantern for burning kerosene by supplying an irreversible current of air to the burner. By those five exceptions the defendants insist that all matter pertaining to the history of the Irwin inventions is immaterial and Impertinent for tho purposes of this case. The suit involves one of the patents of Irwin, and the pleader, in stating tho ease in the bill, describes quite a number of patents which were issued from time to time to Irwin for lamps and lanterns involving the principle of the patent in question. It seems to me that the history of the invention is not only entirely proper under the circumstances of this case, but that it is almost a nocossary part of the complainants’ bill, to show the relation which the patent in question bears to other patents which Irwin had obtained upon kindred devices. I do not, therefore, think that those objections are well taken. The history of an invention is always a part of the controversy in the case. The state of the art, the steps which have been taken, either by the inventor of the patent in question or by other inventors, is always a necessary part of the testimony in the case, and it seems to me a proper matter of averment in this bill.

[766]*766The remainder of the exceptions refer to the allegations in the bill as to the litigation which has been had over this patent, soine suits having been commenced in regard to other patents involving the principle of the irreversible current, and other eases having been upon the patent directly in question. It seems to me very proper for the complainant to set out this feature of his case, because in this circuit we are, by a rule of comity, endeavoring to observe and follow the decisions which have been made in reference to the same patent, or even upon kindred questions, in other circuits.

None of the objections are well taken, and all of them are overruled.

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

Blodgett, J.

Nine exceptions are filed to the bill by the St. Louis Railway Supplies Manufacturing Company, one of the defendants in this case. The first, second, third, fourth, and tenth are applicable to so much of the bill as sets out the successive steps of John H. Irwin, tho inventor of what is known as the “Tubular Lantern,” or a lantern for burning kerosene by supplying an irreversible current of air to the burner. By those five exceptions the defendants insist that all matter pertaining to the history of the Irwin inventions is immaterial and Impertinent for tho purposes of this case. The suit involves one of the patents of Irwin, and the pleader, in stating tho ease in the bill, describes quite a number of patents which were issued from time to time to Irwin for lamps and lanterns involving the principle of the patent in question. It seems to me that the history of the invention is not only entirely proper under the circumstances of this case, but that it is almost a nocossary part of the complainants’ bill, to show the relation which the patent in question bears to other patents which Irwin had obtained upon kindred devices. I do not, therefore, think that those objections are well taken. The history of an invention is always a part of the controversy in the case. The state of the art, the steps which have been taken, either by the inventor of the patent in question or by other inventors, is always a necessary part of the testimony in the case, and it seems to me a proper matter of averment in this bill.

[766]*766The remainder of the exceptions refer to the allegations in the bill as to the litigation which has been had over this patent, soine suits having been commenced in regard to other patents involving the principle of the irreversible current, and other eases having been upon the patent directly in question. It seems to me very proper for the complainant to set out this feature of his case, because in this circuit we are, by a rule of comity, endeavoring to observe and follow the decisions which have been made in reference to the same patent, or even upon kindred questions, in other circuits.

None of the objections are well taken, and all of them are overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 F. 765, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steam-gauge-lantern-co-v-mcroberts-uscirct-1886.