Kells v. McKenzie
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan
In Equity. This was a suit upon reissued letters patent Nos. 8,867 and 8,127, for improvements in brick machines. Of reissue No. 8,867 defendants were charged with having infringed the following claims: (1) A horizontal brick or tile machine, constructed with a tub supported at its ends in the standards; and with a nose-piece or die-holder on the front extension.
Read the full summary
In Equity. This was a suit upon reissued letters patent Nos. 8,867 and 8,127, for improvements in brick machines. Of reissue No. 8,867 defendants were charged with having infringed the following claims: (1) A horizontal brick or tile machine, constructed with a tub supported at its ends in the standards; and with a nose-piece or die-holder on the front extension. (2) The combination of the front standard, supporting the extremity of the tub, a nose-piece attached directly to said standard, and a die secured to the nose-piece; all substantially as herein described. Of reissue No. 8,127 they…
1Opinion of the Court
Brown, D. J.
The machine described in complainant’s model and specifications consists of a horizontal tub of iron, supported by two standards, one at the front and one at the rear end, bolted together so as to prevent the pressure of the clay from forcing them, apart. Upon the rear end of the tub is a hopper for receiving clay, and through its center is a shaft armed with blades set in a spiral position, the revolution of which not only puddles the clay but forces it forward through the tub and through a nose-piece, at the end of which are inserted dies for the moulding of the clay in proper…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Seymour v. OsborneSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Leggett v. AverySupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Powder Co. v. Powder WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Russell v. DodgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Chung Que Fong v. NagleCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1926
- Craig v. Michigan Lubricator Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan · 1896