Keystone Manufacturing Co. v. Adams
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL PEOM THE CIRCUIT OOÜRT OP THE UNITED' STATES POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OP ILLINOIS. On the litli clay of May, 1886, Henry A. Adams filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois a bill of complaint against the Keystone Manufacturing Company, a corporation of the State of Illinois, and Thomas A. Galt, J. B. Patterson, George S. Tracy, and E. L. Galt, officers and managers, of the said company, complaining that the defendants were…
Read the full summary
APPEAL PEOM THE CIRCUIT OOÜRT OP THE UNITED' STATES POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OP ILLINOIS. On the litli clay of May, 1886, Henry A. Adams filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois a bill of complaint against the Keystone Manufacturing Company, a corporation of the State of Illinois, and Thomas A. Galt, J. B. Patterson, George S. Tracy, and E. L. Galt, officers and managers, of the said company, complaining that the defendants were infringing his rights, as the patentee and owner of letters patent No. 132,128, granted on October 15, 1812, by the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Shiras
Prior to the invention patented in 1812 by Henry A. Adams, a well-known defect in cornshellers consisted in the clogging or choking of the chute through which the ears of corn descended.to the sheller. As the ears would approach the throat of the machine, they were liable to stop and. wedge against each other. This sometimes necessitated the stopping ' of the machine in order to break the clog in the feed or chute, and usually the services of an attendant were required to clear the chute and break the clog by punching the ears with a stick.
The object of the Adams .invention was to remedy this…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Elizabeth v. Pavement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Garretson v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Mowry v. WhitneySupreme Court of the United States · 1871
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by114 opinions
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Liu v. SEC. & Exch. Comm'nSupreme Court of the United States · 2020
- Smith v. SnowSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
109 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.