GASTON, WILLIAMS, & WIGMORE, of Canada (Limited), Petitioner, v. PHILIP A. WARNER. [No. 840.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See same case below, 261 Fed. 993. Mr. Cletus Keating for petitioner. Mr. Joseph P. Nolan for respondent. April 18, 1921. Granted. JAMES S. MCKEE et al., Petitioners, v. See same case below, A.L.R. 270 JOHN P. KLINE et al., as the Board of Improvement, etc., Petitioners, v. BURKE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. [No. 911.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See same case below, A.L.R., 271 Fed. 605. Messrs. Frank S. Quinn and William H. Arnold for petitioners. No appearance for respondent. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner, V. CURTIS PUBLISHING COMPANY. [No. 925.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to Messrs. Frank H. Sullivan, Lon P. the United States Circuit Court of Ap Hocker, and George F. Haid for petition-peals for the Third Circuit. ers. Mr. S. Mayner Wallace for respondent. April 18, 1921. Granted. SNAKE CREEK MINING & TUNNEL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. MIDWAY IRRIGATION COMPANY et al. [No. 880.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See same case below, 271 Fed. 157. Messrs. H. R. MacMillan and John A. Marshall for petitioner. Mr. A. B. Irvine for respondents. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. OLYMPIAN DREDGING COMPANY. [No. 901.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the [688] Ninth Circuit. See same case below, 270 Fed. 384. Messrs. E. J. Foulds and Elmer Westlake for petitioners. See same case below, 270 Fed. 881. Solicitor General Frierson and Mr. Adrien F. Busick for petitioner. Messrs. John G. Milburn, Joseph W. Welsh, John G. Milburn, Jr., and Ralph B. Evans for respondent. June 6, 1921. Granted. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner, V. WINSTED HOSIERY COMPANY. [No. 931.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See same case below, 272 Fed. 957. Messrs. Solicitor General Frierson and Mr. Adrien F. Busick for petitioner. Mr. Henry P. Molloy for respondent. June 6, 1921. Granted. [689] FRED BROWNE, Plaintiff in Error, v. CHARLES B. THORN et al., Partners, etc. [No. 933.] Mr. Thomas E. Haven for respondent. in. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. WESLEY L. SISCHO. [No. 898.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See same case below, 270 Fed. 958. Solicitor General Frierson for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari here See same case below, 272 Fed. 950. Mr. James B. McDonough for plaintiff in error. June 6, 1921. Granted. WILLIAM D. HAYWOOD et al., Petitioners, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. [No. 760.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. See same case below, 268 Fed. 795. Messrs. Otto Christensen and George F. | CHARLES O'CONNOR et al., Petitioners, v. Vanderveer for petitioners. Assistant Attorney General Stewart and Mr. W. C. Herron for respondent. April 11, 1921. Denied. JOHN SLAKER, Acting Administrator, etc., et al. [No. 772.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska. See same case below, 105 Neb. 88, 12 A.L.R. 199, 179 N. W. 401. Mr. James M. Johnson for petitioners. Mr. John F. Kirkman, a respondent, pro se. April 11, 1921. Denied. JOHN BARTON PAYNE, as Agent, etc., Petitioner, v. MATTHEW FOLEY. [No. 773.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Maine. See same case below, 119 Me. 425, 111 Atl. 715. Messrs. Evan Shelby and Frank M. Libby for petitioner. Mr. Richard E. Harvey for respondent. April 11, 1921. Denied. J. SIDNEY SMITH, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. [No. 787.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See same case below, 267 Fed. 665; on rehearing, 269 Fed. 365. Mr. John Lee Webster for petitioner. Messrs. Assistant Attorney General Stewart and Mr. Roy C. McHenry for respondent. April 11, 1921. Denied. MARY FLACK, Administratrix, etc., Petitioner, v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA, & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY. [No. 769.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. See same case below, 285 Mo. 28, 224 S. W. 415. Messrs. John H. Atwood and Oscar S. Hill for petitioner. Mr. Cyrus Crane for respondent. [691] CHARLES M. THOMPSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. [No. 788.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See same case below, 267 Fed. 665; on rehearing, 269 Fed. 365. Mr. John Lee Webster for petitioner. Messrs. Assistant Attorney General Stewart and Mr. Roy C. McHenry for respondent. April 11, 1921. Denied. CLYDE A. SMITH, Petitioner, v. UNITED, ULRICA DAHLGREN PIERCE, as Trustee, STATES OF AMERICA. [No. 789.] etc., Appellant, v. JOHN V. DAHLGREN. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the [No. 800.] United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See same case below, 267 Fed. 665; on rehearing, 269 Fed. 365. Mr. John Lee Webster for petitioner. Messrs. Assistant Attorney General Stewart and Mr. Roy C. McHenry for respondent. April 11, 1921. Denied. EDWARD A. SHEDD et al., Petitioners, v. CALUMET CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. [No. 825.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. See same case below, 270 Fed. 942. FILER & STOWELL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. DIAMOND IRON WORKS. [No. 753.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. See same case below, 270 Fed. 489. Messrs. Louis A. Lecher, William G. Henderson, and Frank E. Dennett for petitioner. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. See same case below, 270 Fed. 507. Mr. J. Warren Keifer for appellant. Messrs. Frederic R. Coudert, Howard Thayer Kingsbury, and Lawrence Maxwell for appellee. April 18, 1921. Denied. SAMUEL VERNON ESTATE (Inc.), Petitioner, v. JOHN J. LYTTLE, as Receiver and Trustee, etc. [No. 815.] United States Circuit Court of Appeals Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the for the Second Circuit. See same case below, 270 Fed. 469. Mr. Frederick Seymour for petitioner. Mr. Emanuel J. Myers for respondent. April 18, 1921. Denied. SEABOARD TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Petitioner, v. BOSTON, CAPE COD, & NEW YORK CANAL COMPANY. [No. 833.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. See same case below, 270 Fed. 525. Mr. Frank A. Whiteley for respond-petitioner. ent. April 18, 1921. Denied. PANAYIOTIS PANOULIAS, PETITIONER, V. NATIONAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY. [No. 765.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second [692] Circuit. See same case below, 269 Fed. 630. Mr. Frank C. Briggs for petitioner. Messrs. William Quinby and Livingston Gifford for respondent. April 18, 1921. Denied. JOHN R. BAILEY, Petitioner, v. MISSISSIPPI HOME TELEPHONE COMPANY. [No. 794.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. See same case below, 269 Fed. 125. Mr. Thomas H. Mahony for respondent. April 18, 1921. Denied. JOHN W. YATES, Petitioner, v. CHARLES R. SMITH, Executor, etc., et al. [No. 834.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. See same case below, 271 Fed. 33. STANDARD PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, See same case below, 270 Fed. 203. WILLIAM BARBER, Petitioner, v. OTIS, J. C. DYSART, Petitioner, v. UNITED See same case below, 271 Fed. 171. Mr. Samuel E. Darby for petitioner. Messrs. Oscar W. Jeffery and Robert D. Eggleston for respondent. April 18, 1921. Denied. STATES OF AMERICA. [No. 780.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See same case below, 270 Fed. 77. Messrs. William H. Atwell and Cecil H. Smith for petitioner. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Stewart and Mr. William C. Herron for respondent. April 25, 1921. Denied. BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD, Petitioner, V. TIMOTHY J. DESMOND. [No. 781.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Superior Court of the State of Massachusetts. See same case below, in supreme judicial court, 237 Mass. 236, 129 N. E. 596. Mr. Frederick N. Wier for petitioner. Mr. James H. Vahey for respondent. April 25, 1921. Denied. V. [695] JOSEPH OPLE, Petitioner, GEORGE P. WEINBRENNER, Sheriff, etc. [No. 797]; EARL MILLER, Petitioner, v. GEORGE P. WEINBRENNER, Sheriff, etc. [No. 798]; and LEO CLYNE, Petitioner, v. GEORGE P. WEINBRENNER, Sheriff, etc. [No. 799]. Petition for Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. Mr. Charles A. Houts for petitioners. CARL A. MARTIN et al., etc., Petitioners, v. PRESIDIO MINING COMPANY et al. [No. 790.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See same case below, 269 Fed. 933; on rehearing, 270 Fed. 388. Mr. William Denman for petitioners. Messrs. R. T. Harding, Henry E. Monroe, and J. J. Dunne for respondents. April 25, 1921. Denied. Messrs. Fred Dennett and George E. Whitaker for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Frank Thunen and A. A. Hoehling for defendant in error. April 25, 1921. Denied. rotative movement" of the cap on the sleeve is the feature which the petitioner added to the socket of the patent in suit before putting it upon the market, and it consists, as the figure supra shows, in the open slot (19) cut to the edge of the [673] flange of the cap, into which passes the projection on the sleeve (20) when the two are "telescopically applied" to each other. This projection (20) is formed by cutting two longitudinal slits in the sleeve, and then pressing outward the narrow strip of metal between them. It is perfectly true, as stated in four of the claims, and as asserted with much emphasis in the specification, that this added device effectively prevents any relative rotative movement of the cap and sleeve upon each other. Coming now to the construction of the respondent, which it is claimed infringes the fourth claim of the patent in suit. This (respondent's) socket has been manufactured since 1909, under patent No. 927,344, and it may most readily be described by reference to the following, figure 3 of the drawing, which was a part of the specification of the patent. bayonet slots of the familiar form (14), so positioned that the studs on the cap may enter them when the sleeve is slipped into the cap. But when the sleeve has been telescoped, or pushed, into the cap, so that the lugs have been pressed to the end or bottom of the longitudinal part of the bayonet slots (14), rotation of the sleeve is obviously necessary to bring them into the transverse parts of the slots, so that the two members will be locked against longitudinal separation. (No such rotative movement of the two members is mentioned in the patent in suit, it is expressly provided against in petitioner's second patent, and it is not possible in its commercial socket.) This rotative movement accomplishes a second result. Reference to the figure, supra, shows a longitudinal slot in the sleeve, which in the key socket affords a passage for the key, but in the keyless socket is narrower, and serves only to render the sleeve compressible. To the left of this slot in the sleeve is cut a round hole (15) so positioned that when three of the lugs in the cap are brought by the rotative movement to the ends of the transverse parts of the bayonet lots the fourth stud will snap into the hole (15). This hole (15) is placed in such a relative position that when the three lugs enter the longitudinal parts of the bayonet slots, the fourth stud rides upon the metal near the edge of the slot in the sleeve, and to facilitate this movement the corner of the slot (16) is bent slightly inward. Thus the adjustment of the studs in the cap is practically a universal adjustment between the cap and shell, so that if any one lug is in [675] position to enter any bayonet slot, two others will be in position to enter the other bayonet slots, and the fourth will be in a position to enter the hole (15) when the sleeve and cap have been so pressed together that the (three) other studs have reached the ends of the longitudinal part of the bayonet slots. and the rotation described of the one upon the other has been completed.. A slight compression of the sleeve suffices to release the members when desired. This description shows that the structural features of the two sockets are strikingly different. Instead of slits and outwardly extending recesses in the cap of the one, there are inwardly extended studs riveted to the cap of the other. And instead of slits and out |
