Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

a "box," are employed as a support for the Phillips v. Detroit, lil U. S. 604, 60: [28: books. These boxes run at right angles to 532, 533]. If there were any invention in the front of the case, and they are so con- applying them to roller shelves, Hoffman is structed that the hand may be introduced not entitled to the credit of it, since they are between any two series of rollers in order to shown in the so-called Richmond shelf. The more readily grasp the back of the book, construction of the Wolfe and Adams patwithout liability of the fingers being caught ents is also such as to permit the introducby the edge of the shelf.

tion of the hand for grasping the book with. A device somewhat similar to that patent-out coming in contact with the edge of the ed to Harris is shown in a patent issued in shelves. 1886 to A. Lemuel Adams, wherein a shelf Putting the Hoffman patent in its most is provided with a series of parallel short favorable light, it is very little, if anything, rollers, the front rollers being supported up: more than an aggregation of prior wellon spring arms, which are carried forward known devices, each constituent of which ag. so as to permit of the introduction of the hand gregation performs its own appropriate between them, and thus facilitate the with function in the old way. . Where a combina

drawal of the book, without liability of con- tion of old devices produces a new result such [497]tact of the fingers with any portion of *the combination is doubtless patentable, but

shelf. When a book is to be placed in posi- where the combination is not only of old ele. tion, it is first rested upon the spring roll. ments, but of old results, and no new funcers, which by their elasticity assist in forc- tion is evolved from such combination, it ing the book upon the fixed rollers, when it falls within the rulings of this court in is easily passed by such rollers to its proper Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353, 368 place. The extension of the elastic rollers (22: 241, 248]; Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. in front of the shelf would seem to prevent S. 347, 356 [23: 719, 723] ; Phillips v. City the use of doors in front of the shelves, and of Detroit, 111 U. S. 604 [28: 532); Brinkit is clear they do not support the books erhoff v. Aloe, 146 U. S. 515, 517 [36: 1068); when in place.

Palmer v. Corning, 156 U. S. 342, 345 (39: There was also oral testimony showing 445, 447]; Richards v. Chase Elevator Co. that there were in use in the courthouse in 158 U. S. 299 (39: 991). Hoffman may have Richmond, Indiana, in the year 1873, and succeeded in producing a shelf more conventhereafter, unpatented roller shelves for ient and more salable than any which prebooks, consisting of a wooden shelf, having ceded it, but he has done it principally, if the ordinary hand hole at the front, upon not wholly, by the exercise of mechanical each side of which there were short rollers skill. similar to Hoffman's, though some distance If there be any invention at all in this patfrom the front edge, which enabled the back ent, it is not to be found in the combination of the book to be readily grasped and easily described in the claims, but by a reference to withdrawn upon the rollers. "The evidence the drawing, and in the words "substantial. showed that hundreds of these rollers were ly as described." This would confine the used, and one of them, taken from the court plaintiff to a metallic frame divided longihouse in Richmond, was introduced as an tudinally into three sections, each fitted with exhibit.

short rollers, two of which project above and Comparing these several devices with the forward of the front bar of the frame, which patent in suit, it is manifest that every ele. is bent inward in front of the middle section ment of the combination, described in the to form the "re-entrant bend or recess" for first and second claims, is found in one or the the insertion of the hand. other of such devices. Roller shelves are But in whatever light this device be consid. found in all the patents above described as ered, it is evident that, limiting the patent well as in the Richmond shelf, and if there to the precise construction shown, none of were any invention in substituting metal the defendant's devices can be treated as in. for a wooden frame, it appears to have been fringements, since none of them show a shelf anticipated in the shelf used by the Special- divided into three sections, and none of them, ty Company, known as figure 16, the exist- except possibly one, the manufacture *of(499) ence of which before the Hoffman application which was stopped, indicate a bend in the for a patent is admitted by plaintiff's expert front bar of the frame to form the recess for as well as by the manager of the plaintiff the insertion of the hand. corporation. It was no novelty to place roll. The decree of the court below must be reers at the front edges of the shelves, so as versed, and the case remanded to the court to project above and in front of the shelves, of appeals, with directions to order the bill as this is shown in the Boone, Conant, and to be dismissed. Adams patent, and in the defendant's metallic shelf, used prior to the Hoffman application. The employment of semicircular

ALBERT WADE, Petitioner, hand holes or recesses, for more readily grasping the books, is such a familiar device

TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
in upright partitions for holding books that
scarcely any banking or record office is with-

(See 8. C. Reporter's ed. 499-510.)
out them, and the court may properly take
judicial notice of their use long prior to this Determination of state statute-latest state

patent. Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37 [23: decisions-bonds issued under favorablo (498]200]; Terhune v. *Phillips, 99 U. S. 292 (25: state decisions-validity of county bonde

293) ; King v. Gallun, 109 U.S.99 (29: 870] ; determined by the latest state decisions.

v.

O da

1. In determining what the laws of a state ad valorem tax of five cents to create a sink.

are, which will be regarded as rules of de ing fund for bridge bonds, and to pay the cision, this court will look, not only to its interest on such bonds; that the defendant Constitution and statutes, but at the decisions delivered to the bridge company upon its conof its highest court giving construction to tract for erecting the bridge five bonds on

them. 2. If there be any inconsistency in the opin. December 6, 1888, ten bonds on December 22,

lons of such highest court, this court will 1888, ten bonds on February 12, 1889, and generally follow the latest settled as Fudica- | the remaining twenty-two of such bonds on

tions in preference to the earlier ones. July 3, 1889, such bonds being signed by the 8. County bonds issued in good faith for a val- county judge, countersigned by the county

uable consideration are valid in the hands clerk, and registered by the county treasurof a bona fide holder, although the prior state er; that the several levies in question had decisions are against their validity, if the not been appropriated for any other purpose subsequent state decisions are in favor of by the county, or, at least, a sufficient por. their validity.

tion of them remained unappropriated to pay

the interest and sinking fund upon such [No. 267.]

bonds, and that it was the intention of the

commissioners' court to use these levies with Argued April 26, 1899. Decided May 15, a view of providing an annual fund sufficient 1899.

to pay the interest, and to provide the sink.

ing fund required by law. The petition fur. N WRIT OF CERTIORARI to the United ther averred that plaintiff purchased the Fifth Circuit to review a judgment of that tion in open market, and that he is the legal court affirming the judgment of the Circuit owner and holder of the same; that on JanuCourt of the United States for the Western ary 16, 1896, he presented such coupons to District of Texas sustaining a demurrer and the county treasurer and demanded payment dismissing a suit brought by Albert Wade, thereof, which was refused. plaintiff, against the county of Travis to re The county demurred to the petition upon cover the amount of certain coupons of bonds six different grounds, the first and material issued by said county to build an iron bridge one of which was that the petition failed to over Colorado river. Judgments of the Cir. allege that "at the time the debt was created cuit Court of Appeals and of the Circuit for which the bonds were issued, upon the Court reversed, and case remanded to said coupons of which this suit is brought, any Circuit Court for further proceedings.

provision was made for the *interest, and at(501 See same case below, 72 Fed. Rep. 985, and least two per cent sinking fund upon such 52 U. S. App. 395, 81 Fed. Rep. 742, 26 C. C. bonds." A. 589.

The circuit court was of opinion that, at

the date of the execution of the contract for Statement by Mr. Justice Brown: erecting the bridge, the commissioners' court This was an action brought in the circuit should have made a distinct and specific procourt for the western district of Texas by vision for the interest upon such bonds and the plaintiff Wade, who is a citizen of the for a sinking fund, and thereupon sustained state of Illinois, against the county of Tra- the demurrer and dismissed the cause. vis, to recover upon certain interest coupons

Fed. Rep. 985. detached from forty-seven bonds issued by The plaintiff appealed to the circuit court the defendant for the purpose of building an of appeals, which affirmed the judgment of iron bridge across the Colorado river. the circuit court. 52 U. S. App. 395. Upon

The petitioner set forth that in July, 1888, plaintiff's petition a writ of certiorari was the defendant, being authorized so to do, en subsequently allowed by this court. tered into a contract with the King Iron Bridge Manufacturing Company of Cleve

Messrs. Joseph Paxton Blair and land, Ohio, for the construction of bridge Frank W. Hackett_for petitioner. for public use over the Colorado river, the

Messrs. Clarence H. Miller and Frans company agreeing to complete the same by Fiset for respondent.

November 15, 1888, in consideration of which (500]the defendant *agreed to pay the sum of $47 *Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion(501

000 in six per cent bonds, payable in twenty of the court:
years after date.

This case involves the validity of certain
That prior to the making of such contract, bonds issued by the county of Travis in pay-
to wit, February 23, 1888, the defendant, act. ment to the King Iron Bridge Manufactur-
ing though its commissioners' court, levieding Company for the construction of a bridge
for the year 1888 and subsequent years, until over the Colorado river; and, incidentally,
otherwise ordered, an annual ad valorem tax the weight to be given to alleged conflicting
of twenty cents for general purposes, and an decisions of the supreme court of Texas as to
annual ad valorem tax of fifteen cents for the validity of such bonds.
road and bridge purposes, on each one hun As bearing upon this question, the follow-
dred dollars' worth of taxable property in such ing sections of article XI. of the Constitution
county; that on February 13, 1889, the com- of Texas, upon the subject of "Municipal
missioners' court of the county levied for the Corporations,” are pertinent:
year 1889 an ad valorem tax of fifteen cents "Sec 2. The construction of jails, court-
on each one hundred dollars' worth of prop- houses, and bridges, and the establishment of
erty for road and bridge purposes and an county poor houses and farms, and the lay.

72

after the passage of the act, "the laws of the APPEAL from a decree of the Court of Apvarious tribes or nations of Indians shall not A peals for the District of Columbia af. be enforced at law or in equity by the courts firming the decree of the Supreme Court of of the United States in the Indian terri. that District in favor of the Fenton Metal. tory;" and the twenty-eighth section, that lic Manufacturing Company, plaintiff, and after July 1, 1898, all tribal courts in the In- sustaining the validity of a patent issued to dian territory should be abolished.

Horace J. Hoffman for improvements in The agreement with the Choctaw and storage cases for books and allowing damChickasaw tribes contained a provision con- ages in a suit in equity brought by said comtinuing the tribal government, as modified, pany against the Office Specialty Manufae for the period of eight years from March 4, turing Co. Reversed, and case remanded, 1898; but provided that it should "not be with directions to dismiss the suit. construed to be in any respect an abdication See same case below, 12 App. D. C. 201. by Congress of power at any time to make See also Fenton Metallic Mfg. Co. v. Chase, needful rules and regulations respecting said 73 Fed. Rep. 831, 84 Fed. Rep. 893. tribes.”

For reasons already given we regard this Statement by Mr. Justice Brown: act in general as not obnoxious to constitu- This was a bill in equity filed in the sutional objection, but in so holding we do not preme court of the District of Columbia by intend to intimate any opinion as to the ef- the Fenton Metallic Manufacturing Comfect that changes made thereby, or by the pany against the appellant to recover for the agreements referred to, may have, if any, on infringement of letters patent number 450.the status of the several applicants, who are 124, issued April 7, 1891, to Horace J. Hofiparties to these appeals.

man for improvements in storage cases for
The elaborate opinions of the United books.
States court in the Indian territory by In the specification the patentee declares
Springer, J., Clayton, J., and Townsend, J., that "the object of my invention is to facili-

contained in these records, some of which are tate the handling and prevent the abrasion (492]to be found *in the report of the Commission and injury of heavy books, etc. It consists.

er of Indian Affairs for 1898, page 479, con essentially, *of the peculiar arrangement of 493] sider the subject in all its aspects, and set the guiding and supporting rollers, and of forth the various treaties, tribal constitu- the peculiarities in the construction of the tions and laws, and the action of the many case and shelves hereinafter specifically set tribal courts, commissions, and councils forth." which assumed to deal with it, but we have The following drawing of one of the shelves not been called on to go into these matters, exhibits the peculiar features of the invenas our conclusion is that we are confined to tion. The drawing explains itself so per. the question of constitutionality merely. fectly that no excerpt from the specification

As we hold the entire legislation constitu- is necessary to an understanding of the tional, the result is that all the judgments claims. must be affirmed.

Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice McKenna dissented as to the extent of the jurisdiction of this court only.

[graphic]

OFFICE SPECIALTY MANUFACTURING

COMPANY, Appt.,

FENTON METALLIC MANUFACTURING

COMPANY. (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 492–499.) Judicial notice of use of a device-Hoffman | The two claims alleged to have been inpatent voidnot infringed.

fringed are as follows: 1. A semicircular hand hole or recess, for "1. In a storage case for books, etc., the

grasping the books, in upright partitions for combination of a supporting rack or shelf holding books, is 80 old a device that the composed of metallic strips and having a recourt can take judicial notice of its use, entrant bend or recess in its front edge and long prior to the Hoffman patent of April 7, 1 rollers journaled in said rack and projecting 1891, for improvement in storage cases for

for above and in front of the same on each side

hove books. 2. The Hoffman patent is only an aggregation

of said bend or recess, substantially as de

scribed.
of old, well-known devices, each of which
performs its own function in the old way, and

“2. In a book shelf, the combination of a such patent is vold.

supporting frame, a series of horizontal roli8. Limiting the Hoffman patent to the claims ers, the front roller in two separated secas described, it is not infringed by any of de

tions, the intermediate part of the frame fendant's devices.

being carried back to permit the admission [No. 253.]

of the hand between said roller sections, sub

stantially as described.” Argued April 20, 1899. Decided May 15,! The defendant, the Office Specialty Manu

through mesne assignments of Jewell and tions. It may be remarked in passing that
Yawman, whose application for a patent, none of the decisions in the Patent Office in
filed November 6, 1888, was put in interfer the interference proceedings dealt with the
ence in the Patent Office with the applica- question of prior devices.
tion of Hoffinan, filed February 12, 1887, and The introduction of rollers in book shelves

the interference proceedings on behalf of is undoubtedly a convenient and valuable 1494]Jewell and Yawman, were conducted by the device for preventing the abrasion of large

parties who subsequently formed the Office and heavy books which are obliged to be laid Specialty Manufacturing Company. The flat upon the shelves, especially when they Examiner of Interferences, the Board of Ex. are subjected to frequent handling; but the aminers-in-Chief, and the Commissioner of employment of roller shelves at the time Patents successively decided in favor of Hoff- Hoffman made his application for a patent man, to whose assignees the letters patent (February 12, 1887) was by no means & were subsequently issued. During the pen novelty. Indeed, plaintiff's own expert tesdency of the interference, the Hoffman appli tifies that "it was common to use what were cation was divided, as permitted by the rules called roller shelves, the same consisting of of the Patent Office, to secure a patent for frames or supports and longitudinal parallel certain features not involved in the inter- rollers, which extended the entire length of ference.

the shelf and served to reduce friction in Upon a hearing on pleadings and proofs putting books upon and withdrawing them a decree was entered adjudging the patent from the shelf. One form of such shelves to be valid, and the first and second claims is shown in complainant's exhibit, Office thereof to have been infringed by the defend. Specialty Manufacturing Company's cata. ant; and the case was sent to the auditor to logue, Figure 16.” This exhibit shows a determine and report the profits and dam- shelf frame made of bent metal, firmly riveted ages resulting from the infringement. together, containing three continuous rollers,

After certain proceedings, taken with re- each of the full length of the shelf, made of spect to several infringing devices, not nec- steel in tubular form. Continuing, the witessary to be here set forth, a final decree ness said: was entered in favor of the plaintiff, which, “The use of such shelves was, and is, how. so far as respects the validity of the patent, ever, limited because of certain defects; for was affirmed by the court of appeals, with instance, one of the principal defects is the an allowance for damages, which had been liability of the person placing the book upon rejected by the supreme court. 12 App. D. the shelf to have the fingers pinched between C. 20). Whereupon the defendant appealed the book and the front roller in placing the to this court.

book on the shelf. With light, small books

this, of course, was not a matter of special Messrs. Melville Charch and Joseph B. importance, *and the shelves can be used with[496) Church for appellant,

such books, but the class of books for which Mr. Charles Elwood Foster for appel. such shelves are especially adapted is heavy lee.

books, such as are used in keeping govern

ment records, weighing, in many instances, 1494) "Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion from ten to twenty-six or even thirty pounds, of the court:

and quite large, and with such books the liaWe consider the question of the validity bility to injure the fingers in putting them of this patent as the decisive one in this on and taking them from the shelf is very case. The patent was adjudged to be valid great." by the supreme court of the District of Co. So long before Hoffman's application as Jumbia, as well as by the court of appeals. the year 1870, Samuel H. Harris had obIt had been held to be invalid by Judge La- tained a patent, No. 107,042, for a shelf of combe, sitting in the circuit court for the three parallel wooden rollers covered with southern district of New York, upon a mo sheet metal, the specification of which seems tion for a preliminary injunction (Fenton to assume that wooden rollers had theretoMetallic Manufacturing Co. v. Chase, 73 Fed. fore been used in iron cases for books. Rep. 831), and by Judge Wheeler, upon al A patent issued in 1876 to John L. Boone, final hearing of the same case (84 Fed. Rep. No. 182,157, describes his invention as con893).

sisting “in' attaching rollers to the front (495) The elements of Hoffman's combination edges of book shelves so that when a book is

as described in the first claim alleged to be withdrawn from or placed upon the shelf it
infringed, are (1) a supporting rack or shelf will move over the roller instead of over the
composed of metallic strips; (2) a re-entrant edge of the shelf.” This is to obviate the
bend or recess in its front edge for the in- danger of the book being abraded by the
sertion of the hand; and (3) rollers jour. sharp corners of the shelf over which it is
naled in the rack and projecting above and dragged, especially if the shelf is higher than
in front of the same on each side of the re | the level of the person's head who handleg
cess. In the second claim the combination it.
is described as (1) a supporting frame (ap | A patent issued in 1885 to Walter H. Co-
parently including one of wood as well as nant shows a similar arrangement of front
of metal; (2) a series of horizontal rollers, rollers to protect the books.
the front rollers being in two separated sec- In a patent to Marion T. Wolfe of Octo
tions; (3) the intermediate part of the ber 7, 1879, No. 220,265, there is shown a
frame being carried back to permit the ad- book case in which three series of short roll-
mission of the hand between said roller sec-'ers, each inserted in what the patentee calls

a “box," are employed as a support for the Phillips v. Detroit, lil U. S. 604, 605 (93: books. These boxes run at right angles to 532, 533]. If there were any invention in the front of the case, and they are so con- applying them to roller shelves, Hoffman is structed that the hand may be introduced not entitled to the credit of it, since they are between any two series of rollers in order to shown in the so-called Richmond shelf. The more readily grasp the back of the book, construction of the Wolfe and Adams patwithout liability of the fingers being caught ents is also such as to permit the introdue by the edge of the shelf.

tion of the hand for grasping the book withA device somewhat similar to that patent-out coming in contact with the edge of the ed to Harris is shown in a patent issued in shelves. 1886 to A. Lemuel Adams, wherein a shelf Putting the Hoffman patent in its most is provided with a series of parallel short favorable light, it is very little, if anything, rollers, the front rollers being supported up- more than an aggregation of prior wellon spring arms, which are carried forward known devices, each constituent of which ag. 60 as to permit of the introduction of the hand gregation performs its own appropriate between them, and thus facilitate the with function in the old way. . Where a combina

drawal of the book, without liability of con- tion of old devices produces a new result such (497]tact of the fingers with any portion of *the combination is doubtless patentable, but

shelf. When a book is to be placed in posi where the combination is not only of old eletion, it is first rested upon the spring roll. | ments, but of old results, and no new funeers, which by their elasticity assist in forc- tion is evolved from such combination, it ing the book upon the fixed rollers, when it falls within the rulings of this court in is easily passed by such rollers to its proper Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353, 368 place. The extension of the elastic rollers (22: 241, 248]; Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 C. in front of the shelf would seem to prevent S. 347, 356 (23: 719, 723]; Phillips v. City the use of doors in front of the shelves, and of Detroit, 111 U. S. 604 (28: 532); Brinkit is clear they do not support the books erhoff v. Aloe, 146 U. S. 515, 517 [36: 1068]: when in place.

Palmer v. Corning, 156 U. S. 342, 345 (39: There was also oral testimony showing 445, 447]; Richards v. Chase Elevator Co. that there were in use in the courthouse in 158 U. S. 299 (39: 991). Hoffman may hare Richmond, Indiana, in the year 1873, and succeeded in producing a shelf more conventhereafter, unpatented roller shelves for ient and more salable than any which prebooks, consisting of a wooden shelf, having ceded it, but he has done it principally, if the ordinary hand hole at the front, upon not wholly, by the exercise of mechanical each side of which there were short rollers skill. similar to Hoffman's, though some distance. If there be any invention at all in this patfrom the front edge, which enabled the back ent, it is not to be found in the combination of the book to be readily grasped and easily described in the claims, but by a reference to withdrawn upon the rollers. The evidence the drawing, and in the words "substantial. showed that hundreds of these rollers were ly as described.” This would confine the used, and one of them, taken from the court- plaintiff to a metallic frame divided longihouse in Richmond, was introduced as an tudinally into three sections, each fitted with exhibit.

short rollers, two of which project above and Comparing these several devices with the forward of the front bar of the frame, which patent in suit, it is manifest that every ele- is bent inward in front of the middle section ment of the combination, described in the to form the "re-entrant bend or recess" for first and second claims, is found in one or the the insertion of the hand. other of such devices. Roller shelves are But in whatever light this device be considfound in all the patents above described as ered, it is evident that, limiting the patent well as in the Richmond shelf, and if there to the precise construction shown, none of were any invention in substituting metal the defendant's devices can be treated as infor a wooden frame, it appears to have been fringements, since none of them show a shelf anticipated in the shelf used by the Special. divided into three sections, and none of them, ty Company, known as figure 16, the exist- except possibly one, the manufacture *of(499 ence of which before the Hoffman application which was stopped, indicate a bend in the for a patent is admitted by plaintiff's expert front bar of the frame to form the recess for as well as by the manager of the plaintiff the insertion of the hand. corporation. It was no novelty to place roll. The decree of the court below must be reers at the front edges of the shelves, so as versed, and the case remanded to the court to project above and in front of the shelves, of appeals, with directions to order the bill as this is shown in the Boone, Conant, and to be dismissed. Adams patent, and in the defendant's metallic shelf, used prior to the Hoffman application. The employment of semicircular

ALBERT WADE, Pctitioner,
hand holes or recesses, for more readily
grasping the books, is such a familiar device

TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
in upright partitions for holding books that
scarcely any banking or record office is with.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 499-510.) out them, and the court may properly take judicial notice of their use long prior to this Determination of state statute-latest state

patent. Brown v. Piper, 91 V. S. 37 [23: decisions-bonds issued under favorable (498]200]; Terhune v. *Phillips, 99 U. S. 292 (25: state decisions-validity of county bonde

293); King v. Gallun, 109 U.S.99 [29: 870];' determined by the latest state decisions.

« ForrigeFortsett »