Consolidated Roller-Mill Co. v. Coombs
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan
In. Equity. This was a hill to recover damages for the infringement of letters patent No. 222,895, issued to William D. Gray, December 23, 1879, for “an improvement in roller grinding-mills;” patent No. 289,518, issued to Daniel E. Dowling, December 4, 1883, for a “feed mechanism for roller-mills;” and patent No. 274,508, issued to D. W. Marmon, March 27, 1883, for a “roller-mill.”
Read the full summary
In. Equity. This was a hill to recover damages for the infringement of letters patent No. 222,895, issued to William D. Gray, December 23, 1879, for “an improvement in roller grinding-mills;” patent No. 289,518, issued to Daniel E. Dowling, December 4, 1883, for a “feed mechanism for roller-mills;” and patent No. 274,508, issued to D. W. Marmon, March 27, 1883, for a “roller-mill.” The invention covered by the Gray patent was stated in the preamble to consist “in a peculiar construction and arrangement of devices for adjusting the rolls vertically as well as horizontally, whereby any…
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
The ancient system of reducing wheat to flour by grinding between revolving stones, which obtained from the earliest historical period, has, within the last 20 years, largely given place to the system *27of crushing between rolls, which seems to have originated in Buda-Festh, in the kingdom of Hungary. These roller-mills, which, soon after their invention, were introduced into this country, and have practically superceded in all large flouring-mills the old-fashioned method of grinding, consist generally of two or more pairs of rollers mounted in a strong frame, and, as a rule, lying in the same…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- O'Reilly v. MorseSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Winans v. DenmeadSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Bates v. CoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- James v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Parks v. BoothSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Soehner v. Favorite Stove & Range Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1897
- Union Steam-Pump Co. v. Battle Creek Steam-Pump Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1900
- Craig v. Michigan Lubricator Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan · 1896
- Krajewski v. PharrCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1900