Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/119/373/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/119/373/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Newton v. Furst & Bradley Company, 119 U.S. 373 (1886)
Newton v. Furst and Bradley Company
Argued December 3, 1886
Decided December 13, 1886
119 U.S. 373
Syllabus
The first claim of reissued letters patent No. 8986, granted to Robert Newton, December 2d 1879, for an improvement in gang ploughs (the original patent, No. 56,812, having been granted to F. S. Davenport, as inventor, October 9th, 1886), namely,
"1. In a wheel plough, the combination, with a swing axle and ground or carrying wheel, of friction clutch mechanism and means for engaging and disengaging the latter with the ground or carrying wheel, said parts being constructed and adapted to raise the plough by locking the swing axle to the carrying wheel by friction clutch engagement, and raise the plough beam by the draft or power of the team, substantially as set forth,"
is, in view of the state of the art at the time of the invention of Davenport, not infringed by an apparatus in which the axle and the friction clutch mechanism are different, as devices, from those of the patent.
The first claim of the reissue is invalid, the reissue having been applied for more than thirteen years after the original patent was granted and after the defendant had begun to make machines of the pattern complained of.
The defendant's machine did not infringe the original patent, and the reissue was taken to cover it.
This was a bill in equity to recover for the infringement of letters patent. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
