Gandy v. Main Belting Company

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


Gandy v. Main Belting Company by Henry Billings Brown
Syllabus
Court Documents
Opinion of the Court

United States Supreme Court

143 U.S. 587

GANDY  v.  MAIN BELTING COMPANY

STATEMENT BY MR JUSTICE BROWN.

This was a bill in equity for the infringement of letters patent No. 228, 186, issued June 1, 1880, to Maurice Gandy, for an improved belt or band for driving machinery, and an improved mechanical process of manufacturing the same. In his application the patentee stated that his invention consisted-First, of an improved cotton belt; second, of an improved mechanical process for making cotton belts. 'The belt consists-First, of cotton canvas or duck composed of warp stouter than the weft, both warp and weft being hard spun and the canvas hard and tight woven; second, of cotton canvas or duck thus made, folded and united by longitudinal rows of stitching, and stitched under tension; third, or cotton canvas thus made, folded, and stitched, saturated with linseed oil; fourth, of cotton canvas thus made, folded, stitched, and saturated with linseed oil, pressed and stretched until it is hard, even, and rigid, by which the belt is rendered insensible to the atmospheric changes, and non-elastic.'

The machinery for manfuacturing the belting is also set forth in the specification, but the only claim alleged to be infringed in this case was the second, which reads as follows: '(2) The improved article of manufacture consisting of a hard, even-surfaced, rigid, impervious, nonelastic belt, composed of cotton canvas or duck having its warp thread larger than the weft, both warp and weft being hard spun, the fabric tight-woven and folded, stitched, and saturated with linseed oil.'

The bill was in the ordinary form, and prayed for an injunction and an accounting. The answer denied that the invention was new or patentable, and also denied infringment. From a decree dismissing the bill (28 Fed. Rep. 570) the plaintiff appealed to this court.

Amos Broadnax and J. Edgar Bull, for appellants.

E. Cooper Shapley, for appellees.

Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

Notes[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).