United States Credit System Co. v. American Credit Indemnity Co.

59 F. 139, 8 C.C.A. 49, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2340
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided December 5, 1893·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

LA'COMBE, Circuit Judge.

What the patentee conceived and sought to patent is correctly enough entitled a “means for securing against' excessive losses by bad debts.” He contemplated the insuring of merchants or traders against such losses by means of contracts of insurance; the insurer, whether individual or corporation, guarantying to make good to the insured whatever losses in excess of a definite percentage he might incur from bad debts. In his specification he states that a careful observation of statistics discloses the facts that the average loss due to bad debts varies in different lines of business, and that the average percentage of profits varies in like manner, so that, “on the average, persons transacting any given line or class of business can afford to make losses to the amount of the average percentage of their class without danger of too great a reduction of the profits of their business.” Having-determined from tables compiled, either by himself or others, what is the average percentage of loss in the kind of business the person asking insurance is engaged in, the person practising the patented scheme then “enters into a guaranty Avith the party applying to be guarantied, based on the payment by him of a premium determined by the risk of his class, securing him against any loss from bad debts in excess of the aA^erage loss of his class.” To secure the insurer against undue risk the patentee states that it should be further provided that the persons, losses from whom are to be guarantied against, should be of a given rating as to credit or capital, or both, in some established mercantile agency to be agreed upon between insurer and insured; and for additional security to the insurer the agreement of guaranty is to be so restricted as not to cover losses incurred from dealing with any party in excess of a giAren percentage of the capital of such party as reported by such mercantile agency.

It is manifest that the alleged “new and useful improvement” is a mode of conducting the business of insurance, to be made effective in securing against losses from bad debts by means of contracts of guaranty entered into by the person “practicing the improvement,” and conducting the business of such insurance, with persons desiring to protect themselves by obtaining the security of such contracts. Whether a new method of conducting a business such as insurance is or is not patentable, and whether “forms of contract” by which improved methods in conducting such business are made effective are or are not patentable, are questions which were discussed at length upon the argument, but which need not be decided upon this appeal. They do not arise under this patent.

The patentee begins his specification with the statement that he has invented a “new and useful improvement in means for securing merchants and others from excessive losses by bad debts,” and then sets forth what he declares to be “a full, clear, and exact description of the means and mode of making such guaranty, and of practicing said invention.” The specification which follows begins [141] with a statement of the fixed relation between average percentage of loss and of profits. It proceeds as follows:

".My invention or art or method of guarantying credits is based upon the ascertainment of those facts, and for the purpose of practicing my invention I have prepared or compiled tables, Inowhere given in the patent,'] in which all kinds of business are classified, and the average rate of percentage of loss in each ascertained, from which can be readily determined what amount of loss in any given class of business would be a loss in excess of the average usually sustained from bad debts in that class, and what, therefore, would be an amount of loss .which a person in that business cannot afford to make without impairing the average profits normally due in that class; and I have invented a sheet, page, or form for entering the details of such transaction, forms of which are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.”

Mg. 1 is as follows:

Fig. 2 is the same, only with the headings arranged perpendicularly instead of horizontally. If the columns headed respectively “Percentage on Sales beyond which assurance is given,” and “Percentage on Eating which individual indebtedness must not exceed,” be assumed to set. forth some of the results of each transaction, it is only as a record of something otherwise determined.

The specification, after stating that guaranties for individual doubtful debts are common, sets forth the patentee’s “plan, method, or process,” — his “system of guarantying payment by all persons of a given class on the payment of a fixed premium.” The substance of such system has been already described. It consists in the ascertainment of the average percentage of loss, and the making of a contract, of insurance, prepared to cover only the excess of loss beyond such average percentage, and restricted both as to the rating of the parties whose losses are insured against., and as to the amount of risk 1o be taken in the case of each debtor. The specification then proceeds as follows:

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

United States Credit System Co. v. American Credit Indemnity Co., 59 F. 139, 8 C.C.A. 49, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2340 (2d Cir. 1893).

59 F. 139 (United States Credit System Co. v. American Credit Indemnity Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.
620 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (N.D. California, 2009)
In Re Bilski
545 F.3d 943 (Federal Circuit, 2008)
In Re Bolongaro
62 F.2d 1059 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1933)
Moore v. United States
50 Ct. Cl. 120 (Court of Claims, 1915)
Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Pope
210 F. 443 (Sixth Circuit, 1913)
In re Taylor
31 App. D.C. 529 (D.C. Circuit, 1908)
Hotel Security Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co.
160 F. 467 (Second Circuit, 1908)
Hotel Security Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co.
155 F. 298 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1907)
In re Moeser
27 App. D.C. 307 (D.C. Circuit, 1906)