Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1878-12-04
Wafrliman G 1unrnaL
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER A, 1878.
The Great Organ Case.

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1878.
The Great Organ Case.
RILEY puRDErr JACOB EsrKr a co.
| A DECISION REACHED.
For several years past great legal controversy
has been going on between Mr.. Riley Burdett Of
the Burdett Organ Co., and the firm of J. Estey
& Co. decision has just been reached, and we
proceed Immediately to give our readers a full
and clear statement, as we understand the mat
ter of the points at issue and the practical results
that have been arrived at We have thoroughly
digested the case understand it in all its bearings
and, having up TO this moment refrained, as our
readers will remember, from any comment in the
matter at ALL are now prepared to give an account
Of it, which, we trust. will for all settle the
various conflicting stories and rumors which have
for n long time befogged the public mind as to
the merits or dement's of the two sides of ques-
tion which is, in our opinion, the most important
patent case relating to the piano or organ trade
that has ever been fought out in the courts.
HISTORY OF THE CASE
In February, 1871, Mr. Riley Burdett COM
menced legal proceedings in the United States
Circuit Court for the District OF Vermont, against
the members of the firm of j. Estey & Co., in or
der to restrain them from an alleged infringement
OF patent of his, granted him February 23d, 1869
for an improvement in the manufacture OF reed
organs and to compel them to account to him for
all profits made from all devices constructed on
the principles which he alleged infringed his pa
tent. Judge Smaley, before whom the case was
originally brought, died before its conclusion. 1t
then came before Judge Woodruff, who also died
In February, 1875, 1t was argued before Judge
johnson, who held his decision for nearly two
years, and finally also died without ever having
rendered it, At this stage of the proceedings, it
was arranged to be heard in May, 1873, before
Judges Blatchford, Of New York. and Wheeler, of
Vermont, being respectively Circuit and District
Judges sitting together in New York These
judges have now November is, 1879 rendered
their opinion in the case.
COUNSEL IN THE CASE.
Messrs. j. Estey & Co. have, during the pro-
tracted litigation, had as counsel Hon. Edmund
Burke Chas. NJ. Keller, Esq. (who has since died),
Hon. VIM. NJ. Evarts (Secretary of State), and
Edward N. Dickerson, Esq. Mr.. Riley Burdett
has had for counsel C. b. Stoughton Esq. Hon.
II. L. Stoughton (who has since died), Hon. L. H.
Stoughton, the Hon George +. Edmunds (Sena-
tor for Vermont), and +. J. Phelps, Esq.
THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS.
The claims made by the plaintiff under his pa
tent of 1869 were, in plain words, rs follows:
FUSt-Reed boards containing two and half
sets of reeds
Second-Contracted valve openings of a double
reed-b0ard, admitting an additional partial set Of
reed openings.
Third-A common double reed-board
FOurh--Stops or hampers when placed upon
reed-boards
Practically, Mr. Riley Burdett's position amount
ed to this; that no organ manufacturer could make
an organ with two or more sets of reeds without
paying him a royalty.
THE DEFENDANTS ANSWER
The position taken by the defendant was:
FTst-That patent owned by J. Estey & Co.,
dated January o, 1866, for a eed-board, COW
cred the entire subject in question.
!Second-That, even if it did not, all the plain
tiff devices were old, and had been in use long
before.
IhHd-'That the plaintiff frauduenty claimed
a common double reed-board and the stops or
dampers, which he knew to be old and in COM
mon use.
The defendants also alleged various other legal
sgoIons
THE EVIDENCE.
The plaintiff put in evidence an organ which
the defendants admitted they had made, and
asked for II decree thereupon, in accordance with
the claims in his patent.
The defendants put in answer not only their
patent of 1866, but various reed boards and Or
sans made by one Arvid Dayton, one of the old
est manufacturers in Connecticut, running back
to the year 1855, and one org IN in particular
known in his case AS Exhibit No 81, made in the
year 1866, long anterior to the date when plaintiff
claimed To have made his invention, which had
been not only in public use, but had been exhib-
ited at various fairs in the country, and described
in the newspapers in the year 1866 This evidence
was resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that
the devices contained therein which would defeat
the Burdett patent were inserted by Dayton at the
of the defendants for the purposes of
this quit. This was practically charging Messrs.
J. Estey & Co. with fraud perjury and the subor-
nation of perjury.
Estey x Co. met this charge by producing the
who made the organ, the work
men who actually built it, the purchaser of the
instrument, and his daughter, for whom it was
purchased, and in whose possession 1t had been
ever since, and who had played upon it for a
period OF seven years, when it was put into this
case as evidence, besides several prominent citi-
zens who had seen the organ at the various fairs
and in the house Of its owner and were acquainted
with it,
1t was admitted by the counsel on both sides
that the Dayton reed-boards and organs, il their
integrity was established, were a complete and
final answer to the entire case.
THE DECISION OF THE JUDGES.
At the end of this article we have appended in
full the decision of the judges of which we here
make brief abstract
Messrs. Batchford and Wheeler have decided
First That the patent Of 1866, held by j. Estey
Il Co., is a partial, but not complete answer to
plaintiffs pa ent of 1869
Second-That the integrity OF the entire Day
ton exhibits Of organs and reed-boaIds is fully
tablished, thereby eXonerating all the defendants
and their witnesses from every charge made by
the plaintiff in reference to this matter.
1hhd-That there was not the slightest evil
dence to show that the third claim OF plaintiffs
patent had been infringed upon by the defendants
Fomth-'rhat the fourth claim of plaintiffs
patent old, and that he must furnish satisiac-
tory proof To the Court of his having entered
proper disclaimer for all that he had claimed in it
before he would be entitled to decree ON his
first two claims
FVth-That the admission, of both Sides that
he Dayton exhibits fully answered the case, was
incorrect.
SirH-ln sustaining the first and second claims
of plaintiffs patent they narrowed these claims
down so as to practically make them but Of little
value to plaintiff
SecenM-That in consequence Of plaintiff hav-
ing claimed in his patent I'D and ith clams)
what was DID, he was not entitled to recover costs
THE PRACTICAL RESULTS OF THE DECISION
are that the plaintiff has failed to establish his
as he set out to do, that he has to pay all the
heavy costs of his suit, shat he has TO file dis
claimer Of the fourth claim OF his patent, before
he is entitled to decree ON his first two claims,
and that finally, should he, when the case is ap-
pealed to the Supreme Court of the United States
at Washington, even establish the two claims,
now decided in his favor these claims have been
so narrowed down, that the damages he can pos
siby recover from the defendants will be entirely
nominal. This is emphatically and practically