Krajewski v. Pharr
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Appeal froDi the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The appellants, Thomas F. Krajewski, Alfonso Pesant, José A- Pesant, and Albert Grossman, under the firm name of Krajewski, Pesant & Co., filed a bill in the circuit court against the appellees, John N. Pharr and John S. Bussey, partners under the firm name of Pharr & Bussey, for the infringement of letters patent No. 349,503, issued on September 21, 1880, to the appellant Thomas J.…
Read the full summary
Appeal froDi the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The appellants, Thomas F. Krajewski, Alfonso Pesant, José A- Pesant, and Albert Grossman, under the firm name of Krajewski, Pesant & Co., filed a bill in the circuit court against the appellees, John N. Pharr and John S. Bussey, partners under the firm name of Pharr & Bussey, for the infringement of letters patent No. 349,503, issued on September 21, 1880, to the appellant Thomas J. Krajewski and to James L. Cochrane, as assignee, for a machine for breaking and cutting cane. Cochrane, the assignee,…
1Opinion of the CourtShelby, Circuit Judge
There has been in use for a great many years what is known as the “three-roll mill” for compressing the juice from sugar cane. It consists of three rolls, mounted and framed, rotated by gear wheels. The rolls were made sometimes with and sometimes without grooves. The purpose of the grooves was to firmly hold, the cane as it was drawn between the rolls. Cane of full length was passed between the upper and front lower rolls, and the crushed mass was then made to pass between the top and rear lower rolls. The juice pressed out was caught in a pan, and the bagasse removed by a belt. The mill was…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Potts v. CreagerSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1877
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Fleischman Yeast Co. v. Federal Yeast CorporationDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1925
- Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Union Carbide Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York · 1901
- Smeeth v. Perkins & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1903