Sanitary Street Flushing Mach. Co. v. City of Amsterdam
District Court, N.D. New York
In Equity. Suit by the Sanitary Street Flushing Machine Company against the City of Amsterdam to restrain alleged infringement by defendant, asa user of a street flushing or washing machine, so called, of United States letters patent granted to Leopold Otto Ottofy, assignor to American Street Flushing Machine Company, and for an accounting.
1Opinion of the Court
RAY, District Judge.
In St. Louis Trust Company, as Trustee, v. Studebaker Corporation et al., 211 Fed. 980, 128 C. C. A. 478, the Circuit Court of Appeals in this, the Second Circuit, held the patent above referred to valid for the reason it provides for discharging the water upon the pavement through pipes and flat nozzles at an angle of 20 degrees and less and that this was the most efficient angle of discharge for flushing pavements. That court also held:
“As to the machine now alleged to infringe the testimony is conflicting, but vve are inclined to think defendant’s witnesses have based…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Studebaker Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
- American Street Flushing Co. v. D. Connolly Boiler Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1912
3Cited by2 opinions
- Corrugated Fiber Co. v. Paper Working Machines Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1919
- Sanitary Street Flushing Mach. Co. v. Studebaker Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1914