Tower v. Eagle Pencil Co.

90 F. 662, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2521
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedNovember 19, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 90 F. 662 (Tower v. Eagle Pencil Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tower v. Eagle Pencil Co., 90 F. 662, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2521 (circtsdny 1898).

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

The patent in suit is No. 378,223, dated February 21, 1888, and granted to the plaintiff for a penholder with a cork sleeve for ease of the fingers, fitting smoothly over a round tenon against a square shoulder on the lower end of the body of the holder, and strengthened by a metal tube on the end of the tenon inside the sleeve, with radial points turned outward from the end of the tube over the lower end of the sleeve, and with a slot in the end of the tenon permitting the sides to spring inwardly and admit the pen between one of them and the tube. The specification, referring by letters to the parts aptly shown in drawings, sets forth:

“In order that the sleeve, E, of cork may be protected from abrasion when inserting the pen, P, in position in the holder, I provide a metal re-enforce-tube, H, which fits snugly upon the slotted tenon, B, and within the longitudinal opening formed through the said cork sleeve, E, and has its lower end portion formed into a series of radial points, L, which are turned outward over and upon the lower end of the cork sleeve, whereby the rigidity of the pen is secured within the cork sleeve, and the liability of its being- broken is-greatly diminished, as it is protected by the points, L.
“It will be seen and understood that by the construction of the penholder as above set forth I am enabled to employ a very thin sleeve of cork, and retain all of its desirable qualities, with little expense, as its exterior ‘velvety surface,’ which is so agreeable to the fingers, when held a long time in writing, and which had heretofore required an inconvenient size, and, on account of the brittleness of cork when made of a solid piece, rendered the same objectionable, as well as the increased cost of production. I fully overcome these and other defects by my present invention, which forms a cheap, simple, convenient, and durable penholder of superior quality. I am aware that
[663]*663

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

Related

City of New Port Richey v. Oliver
184 So. 499 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Little River Bk. Tr. Co. v. Johnson, as Mayor
136 So. 452 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 F. 662, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tower-v-eagle-pencil-co-circtsdny-1898.