US Patent: 33,270
|
| Improvement in saws
|
|
Patentee:
|
|
| Nathan W. Spaulding (exact or similar names) - Sacramento, CA |
|
|
Patent Dates:
|
| Granted: |
Sep. 10, 1861 |
| Reissue Information: |
| Reissued as RE1,456 (Apr. 21, 1863) |
USPTO (New site tip)
Google Patents
Report data errors or omissions to steward
Jeff Joslin
|
|
Description: |
| The EAIA "Directory of American Toolmakers" and the 1874 "Wiley's American iron trade manual of the leading iron industries of the United States" both list N. W. Spaulding & Bros., which was located at 20 South Canal St. in Chicago.In the cases of Nathan W. Spaulding v. Nathaniel Page et al., and Spaulding v. J. R. Duff et al., heard by Judge J. Sawyer of the District of California Court in August 1871, the defendants were all sawmill owners who had purchased inserted-tooth sawblades made by American Saw Co. and sold by William Tucker and S. O. Putnam. In an earlier proceeding Tucker and Putnam had been sued by Spaulding for infringing his patent in the sale of those same sawblades. Spaulding prevailed and was awarded damages equal to what his profits would have been had he made and sold those same sawblades. In this subsequent action, Spaulding sought to restrain those sawmill owners from continuing to use the infringing sawblades. However, the court found that since Spaulding had already been compensated for the infringement, that compensation amounted to a license to use the sawblades, just as if Spaulding had sold them the sawblades of his own manufacture. The court acknowledged that this rather shortchanged Spaulding: "It is one of the misfortunes incidents to all violations of the rights of individuals, that the injured party is rarely compensated for all the expenses and vexations involved in the enforcement of his rights through legal proceedings. Patentees are not exceptions to this general rule." The judge pointed out that Spaulding could have proceeded in a different manner: "If he was not satisfied to adopt the sales made by Tucker and Putnam, by seeking the recover the ordinary profits on the manufacture and sale of his invention, he could have omitted to seek such a judgment against them, confining himself to an injunction against them from future infringement, and then recover of their vendees the profits resulting from the use of the patented articles sold, so far as they had been used, and restrain their future use." |
|
