Western Tube Co. v. Rainear

156 F. 49, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5321
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
DecidedAugust 8, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 156 F. 49 (Western Tube Co. v. Rainear) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Western Tube Co. v. Rainear, 156 F. 49, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5321 (circtedpa 1907).

Opinion

ARCHBALD, District Judge.1

The patent in suit is for a pipe coupling, to join together the ends of steam, water, or other similar pipes, the connections of which have to be frequently detached or broken. It is made up of the usual three parts or members, consisting of two end pieces, familiarly known as the “spud” and the “tailpiece,” which are brought together to form the connection by a coupling ring, nut, or collar; the ring and the tailpiece being provided, respectively, with an opposing flange and shoulder, and the ring and spud having appropriate exterior and interior screw-threads, which fit each other. According to the common construction of such couplings, all the members, indiscriminately, are made of the same material, and when this is iron or steel the several parts are liable to become so fastened together by rust, as to be very difficult to uncouple, the act of uncoupling also frequently causing injury, so that, when put together again, the joint is not tight. To make it tight and prevent leakage, a gasket is also frequently necessary between the abutting ends of the pipe, within the coupling ring, and this, in turn, gathers rust and destroys the efficiency of the union. If the coupling ends are of brass instead of iron, while this avoids the rusting, either a gasket has still to be used, or the abutting ends have to be carefully ground to a fit, which may operate well enough to form a water or steam tight connection at first, but upon repeated screwing and unscrewing, the ends are liable to be worn unevenly, and the tightness of the joint be affected accordingly. All this is set forth in the patent, and the object of the invention is to meet and remedy it. This is accomplished by having the nut or ring and the one coupling-end or tailpiece of a relatively hard material, such as wrought iron or steel, and the other coupling-end or spud of a relatively softer and substantially non-oxidizable metal, such as brass, tin, copper, bronze, aluminum, and the like, brass being usually selected, and the opposing surfaces where the coupling ends come together being preferably beveled, the action of the harder metal on the softer, when .they are brought to bear against each other, by the screwing up of the nut or ring, causing them to grind, one on the other, and make a tight joint. By this adaptation of the different materials employed, not only is the coupling easily loosened and detached, the ring being readily unscrewed by reason of the spud being of brass and there being in consequence no rusting of the screw-threads, but, for the same reason, the opposing ends of spud and tailpiece not only [51]*51drop apart when the coupling is unscrewed, but bind upon each other and bear closely together when it is screwed up, without their having to be machine finished or supplied with a washer or gasket, and without their becoming pitted or eaten with rust. The invention thus consists primarily in the selection of certain materials for certain parts; no other arrangement yielding the same results. Its utility is shown by its complete commercial success, it having virtually supplanted all other similar previous devices, of which there have been not a few, and that, too, with customers who are little influenced by anything except real merit, such as engine works and railroads.

[50]

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

Related

Fowler v. Honorbilt Products, Inc.
41 F. Supp. 88 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1941)
Berke v. Courtney Folding Box Corp.
93 F.2d 284 (Second Circuit, 1937)
Sharp & Smith v. Physicians' & Surgeons' Appliance Co.
174 F. 424 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 F. 49, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/western-tube-co-v-rainear-circtedpa-1907.