Raymond v. Singer Manuf'g Co. and others

11 F. 427·United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts·1882

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Raymond v. Singer Manuf’g Co. and others. (Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. April 18, 1882.) Patent — Spring Catch — Anticipation. Where the evidence shows that the claim was an invention anticipated, the hill alleging the infringement will be dismissed. In Equity. T. W. Clarke, for complainant. Browne, Holmes & Browne, for defendants. [MAJORITY — Lowell, C. J.] Lowell, C. J. The plaintiff is the owner of patent No. 101,140, granted to Lawyer & Gasten, March 22, 1870, for an improvement in sewing machines, and alleges an infringement by the defendants of the second claim of the patent, relating to a spring catch for keeping the shuttle in place. After careful and repeated examinations of the evidence, I think the defendants have proved that this part of the invention was-anticipated by James Bolton, in 1867, as alleged in the amended answer. Bill dismissed.