Jackson Fence Co. v. Peerless Wire Fence Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan; Arthur J. Tuttle, Judge. Suit in equity by the Peerless Wire Fence Company against the Jackson Fence Company. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan; Arthur J. Tuttle, Judge. Suit in equity by the Peerless Wire Fence Company against the Jackson Fence Company. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. The Peerless Company, as owner of patent No. 879,965, issued February 25, 1908, to Vernon Hoxie for “staple forming and discharging mechanism,” brought against the Jackson Company the usual form of infringement suit in equity based on defendant’s use of the supposed infringing device in a machine or loom for making wire fence. The defense was that…
1Opinion of the CourtDenison, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [1] In this recital of the prior art, we have not confined ourselves to fence-making machines; but we have extended it, as we think it must be, to include all machines that form or eject or form and eject staples. This is for the reason that, though the proof shows the invention was made by a man engaged in the fence-making business, and for the purpose of being used in that business, yet he deliberately sought and obtained a patent which contained no such limitation. He entitled his device “staple forming and discharging mechanism,” he said that it was not…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. WillardSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Davis Sewing Mach. Co. v. New Departure Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Lyman Mfg. Co. v. Bassick Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1927
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. UNITED STATES ENG. & FOUNDRY CO.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1933
- Bailey v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940
- Byers MacH. Co. v. Keystone Driller Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1930
- Timken Detroit Axle Co. v. Cleveland Steel Products Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1945
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.