Legal Opinion

Mowry v. Whitney

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided January 1, 1871PublishedCited by 165 opinions

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Ohio; the suit being a bill by Whitney for an alleged infringement. by Mowry, of a patent which Whitney had for an improvement in the process of making wheels for rail-cars. The case was thus: Wheels for rail-cars require to be made in a special way. The “tread” of the wheel, as it is commonly called — that is to say, the periphery — the surface which runs over the rail— must be very hard, or else it will wear out.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Ohio; the suit being a bill by Whitney for an alleged infringement. by Mowry, of a patent which Whitney had for an improvement in the process of making wheels for rail-cars. The case was thus: Wheels for rail-cars require to be made in a special way. The “tread” of the wheel, as it is commonly called — that is to say, the periphery — the surface which runs over the rail— must be very hard, or else it will wear out. On the other hand, the interior portions of the wheel, especially the hub, against which there is no friction, but on…

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Strong

The defences set up to the complainant’s bill for an infringement are, that the patent is void for want of novelty in the invention, and for want of utility, and also that it has not been infringed by the defendant.

To determine how far these defences are sustained it is important to have a clear apprehension of the state of the art when the patent was granted, and of the invention which it was intended to secure to the patentee. Prior to the 2d of August, 1847, cast-iron railroad wheels had been cast, and cast in chills, that is, they had been cast in sand moulds with an outer circumference…

2Cited by165 opinions

  1. Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  3. Miller v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  4. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
  5. Liu v. SEC. & Exch. Comm'nSupreme Court of the United States · 2020

160 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API