Cincinnati Car Co. v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
L. HAND, Circuit Judge.
The first patent was for a vestibule between two ears in what is called an “articulated train.” This means that the adjacent ends of each ear on the train are carried by a single truck, thus avoiding the need of two trucks for each ear, and requiring but one more truck for the train than there are cars. The patent discloses such a train (part of whieh is the subject of the third patent), but claims only certain features of the vestibule, whieh secure to the passengers a safe passage from car to ear. To insure this it is necessary that such a vestibule shall rotate on…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Royal Typewriter Co. v. Remington Rand, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
- Cincinnati Car Co. v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1933
- Nachman Spring-Filled Corp. v. Spring Products Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
- Cincinnati Car Co. v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Cincinnati Traction Bldg. Co. v. Pullman-Standard Car Mfg. Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1940
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.