Troy Iron & Nail Factory v. OdiorneAnnotate this Case
58 U.S. 72 (1854)
U.S. Supreme Court
Troy Iron & Nail Factory v. Odiorne, 58 U.S. 17 How. 72 72 (1854)
Troy Iron & Nail Factory v. Odiorne
58 U.S. (17 How.) 72
A machine for making hook headed spikes was constructed in Boston, prior to the 18th of April, 1839, and therefore not within a patent for a machine for a similar purpose which Burden applied for on that day.
This was a bill filed by the Troy Iron & Nail Factory, a manufacturing corporation established in the State of New York, to restrain the Odiornes from infringing certain letters patent granted to Henry Burden, on the 2d of September, 1840, and by him assigned to the complainant.
The respondents filed an answer, taking various grounds of defense, which it is not necessary under the circumstances of the case to particularize. At October term, 1851, the following stipulation was signed by the parties, and filed in the cause:
"The defendants agree not to deny the validity of the complainants' patent, provided they make out their title to the said letters patent to be good."
"They also agree not to deny that the machine complained of in the complainants' bill is an infringement on the patent granted to H. Burden on August 4, 1840. [Sept. 2.]"
"If the complainants shall establish their title to the letters patent aforesaid, the proper decree may be entered for the complainants unless the defendants shall prove that the spike machine used by them and complained of in the bill aforesaid was constructed prior to the alleged application of H. Burden, made April 18, 1839, for letters patent therefor according to the provisions of the statute of the United States, 1839, ch. 88, sec. 7, or was the result of an independent, original invention, prior in time to the invention of the said Burden, in either of which cases the proper decree shall be entered for defendants."
"C. P. CURTIS, JR., Plaintiff's attorney"
"J. A. ANDREW, for defendants"
Much testimony was taken upon the subjects involved, and in December, 1852, the circuit court dismissed the bill.
From this decree, the complainant appealed to this Court.