Corrington v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
In Equity. Suit by Murray Corrington and the Corrington Air Brake Company against the Westinghouse Air Brake Company for alleged infringement of United States letters patent No. 762,282, dated June 14, 1904, application filed September 28, 1903, granted to Murray Corrington for “fluid-pressure brake apparatus,” and for an injunction and an accounting. The bill of complaint was filed March 6, 1907, the answer May 6, 1907, and the replication June 3d following.
Read the full summary
In Equity. Suit by Murray Corrington and the Corrington Air Brake Company against the Westinghouse Air Brake Company for alleged infringement of United States letters patent No. 762,282, dated June 14, 1904, application filed September 28, 1903, granted to Murray Corrington for “fluid-pressure brake apparatus,” and for an injunction and an accounting. The bill of complaint was filed March 6, 1907, the answer May 6, 1907, and the replication June 3d following. On final hearing.
1Opinion of the Court
RAY, District Judge.
The letters patent i'n suit No. 762,282, granted June 14, 1904, on application filed September 28, 1903, to Murray Corrington, of New York City, for “fluid-pressure brake apparatus,” relates, says the patent, “to improvements in fluid-pressure brake mechanism, and has for its object, more particularE, the better control of railway vehicles by enabling an engineer to hold his train under a more certain and continuous brake control than is feasible with the existing brake systems.” It also says:
“It is intended to describe and claim herein, broadly, mechanism for…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Seymour v. OsborneSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- McClain v. OrtmayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Winans v. DenmeadSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Stebler v. Riverside Heights Orange Growers' Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1913
- Clark Blade & Razor Co. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1912
- General Electric Co. v. Continental Fibre Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1919
- Battey v. Paris Beauty Parlors Supply Co. of San Francisco, Ltd.District Court, N.D. California · 1933