Duer v. Corbin Cabinet Lock Company

by Henry Billings Brown

United States Supreme Court

149 U.S. 216

Duer  v.  Corbin Cabinet Lock Company

This was a suit in equity by A. Adgate Duer against the Corbin Cabinet Lock Company for the infringement of a patent. The court below dismissed the bill, (37 Fed. Rep. 338,) and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Statement by Mr. Justice BROWN:

This was a bill in equity for the infringement of letters patent No. 262,977, issued August 22, 1882, to Morris L. Orum, for an improvement in locks for furniture, such as are used on bureau or desk drawers, or the doors of wardrobes, washstands, etc.; and, as stated by the patentee in his specification, 'it has for its object to provide a lock of such shape as to adapt it for insertion in a mortise of peculiar form, whereby a pair of the securing screws or nails is dispensed with, and the case of the lock is held laterally in the mortise by reason of its conformity thereto in shape.'

The following drawings illustrate the lock, and mortise in which it is held:

The patentee further said in his specification:

'The lock costs no more than an ordinary one of equal quality, and to attach it one tack is used, instead of four screws, as usual; but the main advantage is due to the saving of time and labor in making the mortise, and to the superiority of the finished job, by reason of the fact that the lock plate is countersunk in the wood, instead of lying upon its surface. This result has never heretofore been attained, except, by hand chiseling, which is a slow and tedious process.

'I am aware that locks arranged to dovetail into their mortises are not broadly new, and such I do not claim.'

His claim-and there was but a single one-was as follows:

'The lock herein described, having a dovetail cap and top plate, and a front plate projecting laterally and below the cap, and rounded at the bottom, whereby the lock is adapted for insertion in a mortise formed by a laterally cutting bit, and when in place is sustained by a countersunk front plate, as set forth.'

The answer set up certain anticipating devices owned by the defendant, and the case was heard in the court below upon the pleadings and proofs, and the bill dismissed. 37 Fed. Rep. 338. Plaintiff thereupon appealed to this court.

Benjamin Price and Wilmarth H. Thurston, for appellant.

Chas. E. Mitchell and John P. Bartlett, for appellee.

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

Notes