« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
sions of the plaintiff. It there appeared that a bridge was about to be built over the Schuylkill river at Chestnut street in the city of Philadelphia, under the authority of an act of the legislature of Pennsylvania, when a party owning valuable coal wharves just above Chestnut street filed a bill to prevent its erection, alleging, as in the present case, that it would be an unlawful obstruction to the navigation of the river, and a public nuisance, inflicting upon him special: damage, and claiming that he was entitled to be protected by an injunction to restrain the progress of the work, and to a decree of abatement should it be completed. The river was tide-water, and Aavigable to the wharves of the plaintiff by vessels drawing from 18 to 20 feet of water; and, for years, commerce to them had been carried on in all kinds of vessels. The bridge was to be only 30 feet high and without draws, and, of course, would cut off all ascent above it of vessels carrying masts. The city justified its intended action under the act of the legislature, setting up that the bridge was a necessity for public convenience to a large population residing on both sides of the stream. The court below dismissed the bill, and this court affirmed its decree, holding that as the river was wholly within her limits the state could authorize the construction of a bridge until congress should, by appropriate legislation, interfere and assume control of the subject. In giving its opinion the court observed that it should not be forgotten that bridges which are connecting parts of turnpikes, streets, and railroads are means of commercial transportation as well as navigable waters, and that the commerce over them may be greater than on the water; that it was for the municipal power to determine which should be preferred, and how far either should be made subservient to the other; and that this power could be exercised by the state until congress interfered and took control of the matter.
All the considerations which governed the decision of that case operate with equal, if not greater, force in the present case. In that case different parts of a city separated by a navigable water were connected by a bridge; in this case two cities thus separated are united. In that case the obstruction was complete and permanent to all vessels having masts; in this case the obstruction does not ex. ist except to a limited class of vessels having high masts, and to them it is little more than a temporary inconvenience. In that case there was no approval of the structure by congress, except such as may be inferred from its silence; in this case there is its direct authorization of the bridge after a careful consideration of its effect upon navigation by a commission of distinguished engineers. In that case the bridge* was held to be a lawful structure against all private parties, the federal government alone having the right to object to the obstruction to the navigation of the river which it might cause and to remove it; in this case that government does not object, but approves and sanctions the structure; and the public benefit from it far outweighs any
inconvenience arising from its interference with the navigation of the stream.
The recent case of Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. 8. 678, [S. C. 2 Sup. Ct. REP. 185,] follows the decision in Gilman v. Philadelphia, and is equally pointed and decisive. In the light of these cases (and others of the same purport might be cited) the claim of the plaintiff that the construction of the great work which was to connect, and which has since then connected, the cities of New York and Brooklyn should have been suspended, appears to be wholly without merit.
The decree of the court below dismissing his bill must therefore be affirmed; and it is so ordered.
(109 U. S. 408)
FAY and others v. CORDESMAN and others.
(December 3, 1883.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-REISSUE No. 1,527—“GUIDE AND SUPPORT FOR
Claim 4 of reissued letters patent No. 1,527, granted to John Richards, August 25,
1863, for a "guide and support for scroll-saws," the original patent, No. 35,390, having been granted to him, May 25, 1862, for an “improved guide and support for scroll-saws," namely, “ (4) An anii-friction guide which is adjustable so as to accommodate different thicknesses of saw-blades, and to compensate for wear, in combination with the upper portion of a web saw-blade, substantially as set forth,” does not cover an arrangement in which a band-saw is used, passing over wheels, and running constantly in one direction, towards the table on
which the stuff lies, and having a tension over the peripheries of the wheels. Claim 5 of said reissue, namely, “(5) The combination of the anti-friction saw
support and guide, or the equivalent thereof, with an adjustable guard, or its equivalent, substantially as and for the purpose set forth,” is not infringed by an arrangement in which such a band-saw is used, and the guard does not hold down the stuff against the upward lifting action of the saw, because the saw is
constantly passing downward. The claim of letters patent No. 78,880, granted to J. A. Fay & Co., June 16, 1868,
for an “improvement in guides for band-saws,” on the invention of John Lemman, namely, “ The combination of the roller b with fixed lateral guides, CCC, one or more, arranged and operated substantially in the manner and for the purposes specified,” is for the combination of an anti-friction smooth-faced wheel to support the back or thin edge of the saw, and to have lateral adjustment, presenting different points to wear, with the fixed guides, and is not infringed by an arrangement in which the wheel has two grooves in it, in one of which the saw runs, and in the other of which it can be made to run by lat
eral adjustment. Claim 1 of letters patent No. 120,949, granted to J. A. Fay & Co., November 14,
1871, for an “improvement in band-sawing machines, on the invention of William H. Doane and William P. McKee, namely, “(1) The frame A, A', A", in combination with the lower arbor-bearing, said frame being constructed as herein described, with a depression A", permitting ready removal of the arbor, as explained,” is not infringed by an arrangement in which the depression does not leave exposed a seat which is entirely open upward, and the arbor-bearing
cannot be removed without detaching the pulley from the arbor. Claim 2, namely, “ (2) The arrangement of frame A A', A", A"', and of the horizon.
tally and vertically adjustable arbor-bearing C, D, D’, E, E', G, H, A,” is not infringed by an arrangement which does not have the frame and depression of claim 1, or the elements D D', or the same or equivalent means of adjusting such
arbor-bearing either horizontally or vertically. Claim 3, namely," (3) The arrangement of step or saddle K and its contained box
or bearing L L,'” covers, as an element of the arrangement, among other things, a spring which carries the weight of the saddle, and gives an elastic tension to the saw, and is not infringed by an arrangement in which there is a rigid sad
dle and no spring. Claim 4 namely, " (4) In combination with the upper arbor, L', the lower arbor.
bearing, E, adjustable both vertically and horizontally, as shown and described, and for the purpose set forth," is not infringed by an arrangement which does not infringe claims 2 and 3.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern District of Ohio.
Robt. H. Parkinson, for appellants.
E. E. Wood and E. Boyd, for appellees. • BLATOHFORD, J. This suit in equity was brought for the infringement of three several letters patent. The first is reissue No. 1,527, granted to John Richards, August 25, 1863, for a "guide and support for scroll-saws,” the original patent, No. 35,390, having been patented to him, May 27, 1862, for an “improved guide and support for scroll-saws." The specification of the reissue is as follows, including what is inside of brackets and what is outside of brackets, omitting what is in italics :
“ To all whom it may concera: Be it known that I, John Richards, of Co lumbus, in the county of Franklin, and state of Ohio, have invented a new and useful [method of guiding and supporting] combined guide, guard and support for scroll-saws; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear, and exact description of (one practical means of carrying out my invention] the same, reference being had to the accompanying drawings forming part of this specification, in which (Figure] Fig. 1 is a perspective view of a portion of Lal the table and [a] the saw-blade (of a “scroll saw-mill,' with my invention applied to the same.] and my improved upper combined guide, guard and support. [Figure) Fig. 2, a longitudinal section of the same connected to the suspended stud of the building. [Figure) Fig. 3 is a horizontal section [through the guide and support.] in the line w u, of*Fig. 2. [The same] Similar letters of reference (where used) in [different] the several figures indicate corresponding parts. [It has long been a desideratum to obtain a scroll sawmill which will work successfully while the upper end of the saw-blade is left free from a sash or upper straining device; and this has never been attained until the development] The nature of my invention (which) under this patent consists (1st, in working the saw at a point above the table in a groove which is inclosed by anti-friction material, such as steel, polished iron, or glass, or any other known and suitable metal or substance, the upper end of the saw being disconnected from any upper suspender or sash, but supported and guided at its back edges and at its sides or broad faces, and its lower end con. nected to any mechanical device that will produce the desired motion in the saw. It consists, 2d, in an adjustable guide and support whereby different thicknesses of scroll or web saw may be used at will. It consists, 3d, in attaching the anti-friction guide and support to an adjustable device which constitutes a guard to hold down the stuff being sawed, and also insures a support of the saw at the point near where the sawing is performed as well as above this point. My principle of operating a scroll or web saw must not be con
founded with the muley saw,' as in the muley saw' it is common to employ guides attached to the saw, such guides running in or upon bearings independ. ant of the saw-plate, whereas with
the web or scroll saw worked according to my discovery, the back of the blade or plate is supported upon a hardened stee) or other durable anti-friction surface, and is guided laterally by similar surfaces, so that the saw is supported and guided without any means of tension being employed. Furthermore, ‘muley saws are supported at each end by cross-heads and only in the center by lateral guides ; and a saw must be employed that is strong enough in its cross-section to stand the work. Now with my plan, I support the saw down to the top of the wood being sawea which is a new thing in this class of saw-mills, and enables me to use small light saw-blades. Previously to my discovery of running the upper end of the web or scroll saw in frictional contact with an upper guide it was deemed an impracticable thing, and it is now only by practical demonstration and long use that saw-mill men are convinced that such wethod of working scroll or web saws will not cut through and rapidly wear out the guide. The nondestruction of the guide in a short period of time, although the pressure upon it is immense, is due to the fact of the guidu being of hardened steel or other smooth, hard material, over which the saw-plate glides with but little frictional wear.] in the guide and back supporting bars or plates in connection with the sliding guard, the same constituting a combined guide, guard and support for the free or disconnected upper portions of a scroll-saw blade. To enable others skilled in the art to make and use my invention, I will proceed to describe [one practical means in which I have embodied it with great success ; but, in doing so, I do not wish to be understood as limiting myself to these mechanical devices in themselves, as the principle may be embodied in various other means and still not depart from the discovery embodied in machinery that I desire to patent.] its constructio.a and operation with reference to the drawings. [Not using] I do not use a sash (or) nor other means of straining the saw S,  but fasten the lower und of the [blade) same to the upper end of a stock or slide, S, of [a] the pitman, by a set-screw, S2, or (I may otherwise connect this end of the blide to a device which will properly operate the saw. The] in any other simirar manner, and have its top or upper (end of the saw] portion disconnected alove the table [T,] T. (I leave entirely disconnected, but in order to stealy or guide and support this free end during the sawing operation, I attach a grooved steel guide to a The said upper portion of the saw is supported and guided by means of the two parallel bars a a, and the angular plate b. The bars have a lateral adjustment to accommodate saws of different thicknesses, their purpose being to keep the saw in a true vertical line, and to keep it prom twisting, while the office of the back plate, 6 b', is to support the saw against the strain of the stuff on the teeth, when the work is being shoved against it. The guides a a and back plate b b' are all made of hardened steel, to prevent friction and wear. This device a a b b' is fastened to the lower end of the sliding strip or guard piece A, (other device which will answer as a firm support to the guide, and as a guard to keep down the lumber being sawed. The device A is attached to a] which is fitted in a groove of a suspended stud (or timber] B, of the building, [and is better if made adjustable by means of a slot and clamp-bolt, such as designated by the letters e cd; but other known means for adjusting this de vice may be adopted. The guide, as shown, is formed of three parts, to-wit, a back plate, b, and two side plates a, a, which latter are bolted or screwed firmly to the former, as shown. The slots S through which the bolts f f pass are large enough to allow the plates a a a slight lateral adjustment whenever it is desired to use a saw with a greater thickness or a thinner saw. The same end, viz., the formation of a steel guide, or a guide of hard anti-friction surface, would be attained if a groove was formed in a thick steel plate, or other hard substance, except the advantage of accommodating saws of various thicknesses. I believe I am the first to use the grooved anti-friction guide, as well as the first to have the groove variable in width, and therefore I do not confine myself to adjustable guides and supports. The office of the back part of the groove or guide is to support the saw against the strain of the timber on the teeth when the work is being shoved against it, while the office of the lateral portions of the groove or guide is to keep the saw in a true vertical line and prevent it from twisting. The office of the guard A, which extends down nearly to the top of the table, is to hold down or prevent flying up of the stuff' or timber being sawed, and at the same time bring the supporting guide to the saw right down to the place where the sawing is being performed, and thus insure the most perfect operation as well as an effectual supporting and guiding of the saw. and confined accordingly, as the thickness of stuff being sawed requires, by means of a clamping screw-bolt, c, und hand-nut, d. The bolt passes loosely through an oblong slot, e, of the guardstrip, but fastens firmly in the stud B, as shown. This guard rests in close contact, or nearly so, with the stuff being sawed, and keeps the same firmly down upon the table, while the device a a and b b guides and supports the saw, as above stated. It will be seen that screw-bolts, ff, confine the plate b and bars to the strip or guard A, and that the holes or slots through the bars a are elongated so as to allow the guide-bars a a chunce to move nearer together or further apart, to admit different thicknesses of saw-blade. It will also be seen that the guides, by being attached to the strip, are adjusted with it up and down, the said up and down adjustment being allowed by the slot ell of the strip; and thus the angular part b' of the plate b aids also in holding down the stuff, it having a vertical kerf, g, cut in it, to admit the saw-blade, and the guide and supporting plates or bars are always in proper position. This (guard by its] arrangement also obviates the [heretofore].necessity of leaving the upper end of the saw-blade above the table unsupported and unguided, as it allows of the work or (timber] stuff being freely turned while the sawing is progressing, a clear open space between the guard and the table being left. (In the drawing I have shown the lower end of the guide forming an angle; this is to give a larger guard surface. This angular portion has a kerf, g, cut in it to admit the saw-plate to the back of the guide. I, however, do not limit myself to this form of guide.] The plate b might be made without the angular part b', but not answer so yood a purpose. I do not claim operating a scroll-saw without straining, nor do I claim the application of lateral guides to saws; neither do I claim an adjustable guard to prevent the stuff rising with the saw.”
Reading, in the foregoing, what is outside of brackets, including what is in italic, and omitting what is inside of brackets, gives the text of the original specification. The original patent contained one claim, as follows:
“The guide bars a a, and the back plate b, in connection with the sliding guard-strip A, the same constituting a combined guide, guard and support for the top of a scroll-saw, and operating substantially as herein described.”
The reissue contains five claims, as follows:
“ (1) Running the upper portion of a web or scroll-saw above the table, in a groove of an anti-friction guide and support, substantially as and for the purpose described. (2) Operating practically an unstrained web or scroll saw, by combining with such saw-mills an upper anti-friction guide, which supports the back of the saw-blade, and also sustains the saw-blade at its sides or faces, substantially as set forth. (3) The use of anti-friction guides as a substitute for straining devices, in combination with web or scroll saw blades,