Heaton v. Quintard
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
In equity. This was a final hearing, on pleadings and proofs, of a suit [by Charles W. S. Heaton and William H. Webb against George W. Quintard and others] founded on letters patent [No. 38,206], of the United States granted April 14th, 1863, to the plaintiff Heaton, for a “system of defensive armor for marine and land batteries.”
Read the full summary
In equity. This was a final hearing, on pleadings and proofs, of a suit [by Charles W. S. Heaton and William H. Webb against George W. Quintard and others] founded on letters patent [No. 38,206], of the United States granted April 14th, 1863, to the plaintiff Heaton, for a “system of defensive armor for marine and land batteries.” Such system was described in the specification of the patent as consisting of iron armor plates laid in the usual way against the longitudinal or outer timbers of a vessel, such timbers being such as to form a sufficient backing to rigidly support the armor plates,…
1Opinion of the Court
BLATCHFORD, District Judge.
The alleged infringement in this case consisted in putting upon the Onondaga, a vessel of war constructed for the government of the United States, substantially the arrangement of armor described and claimed in the patent. The vessel was built by the defendant Quin-tard, under a contract made by him with the government of the United States to build her for such government. Such contract did not include the putting of any wooden armor outside of the iron armor. In March, 1863, the navy department of the United States gave directions to have the wooden armor put on.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- United Nickel Co. v. WorthingtonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1882