The Rice belt journal. (Welsh, Calcasieu Parish, La.) 1900-19??, 1914-11-24
JOHN T. HOOD,
Editor and Manager.
LAYNE And BOWLER COMPANY
Continued On Page OneY

rupt. For example, the United Well
Works of Stuttgart, Arkansas (and
others leaving our judgment for
damages without value SO as a matter
of self protection we are obliged to sue
the user as we'll as the manufacturer
or seller or agent.
The user may say; well, the manu-.
faCturer protects u.s." but if this is so,
ask the users Of pumps sold to them by
the United well Works. Who has pr o
tected them and why it is they are now
paying the Layne & Bowler Company
damages, or royalty for use of our en-
closed line shaft.
We have filed suits in the United
States Courts against number of us.
ers of pumps which we believe infringe
our patents We are, therefore, put.
ting you on notice concerning our
rights for your own protection.
This ought to be sufficient notice to
farmers andothers using or Contemplat.
ing the use of irrigation pumps which
infringe our patents that we mean bust
ness and that we mean to protect our
rights. To this end we have some if
teen attorneys in different territories
who will give their best attention to
the matter of protecting our patents.
We do not want to bring suit against
any one, but we will be forced to bring
suit against every purchaser of a pump
that infringeS our patents, and for your
information will state that thus far
every patent suit brought by US has
been decided in our favor.
The people in the market for irriga
ton machinery have been informed
and lead to believe for the last four or
five years by parties infringing our
patents, that we were simply bIuffing
and would not bring suit but we were
forced to bring suit and that we could
not hope to have our Patented EncloS.
ed Line Shaft Pump With Protected
Bearings Validated, tbut the courts
have validated Same.)
Most of the Irrigation People know
that we were the first to introduce
pump not requiring an open pit in
combination with the Patented EnCloS.
ed Line Shaft Pump. They also know
that this style of pump is being almost
exclusively used.
For your information will quote you
the following which is paragraph from
the latest decision rendered by the
United States Court of Appeals at New
Orleans and speaks for itself:
Comparing the conceded practical
benefit that has been derived from
Layne's Patented Pump with the tbeo.
etical argument of the defendant we
have come to the confusion that the
former should prevail, and that claim
20 OF fhe compartments Patent should
be sustained, and that the defendants
apparatus should be held to infringe it
in the one respect of closed casing
for the pump shaft of the design and
with the triple function attributed to
1t IN the specifications of LayneS pat.
end.
The decree appealed from it is cor.
rect in so far as it recognizes the valid. !
ity of the patent and finds the appellee
Infringing the 10th, claim thereof. 1t
Is there fore amended so that the 1st,
End, 5th, 9Th, and TIN paragraph shall
be read as follows:
~ That the letters patent of the
United States, issued to Mahlon E.
Layne on Way %, 1906, bearing the
number S21,B53, are good and valid in
law asto the claim Goth. which is as
follows:
20. The combination 81 we'll cas-.
ing rotary pump therein and line
shaftfor the pump entirely closed off
from the water in the we'll
~ That the said Mahlon E. Layne
was the first, true and original inyen
tor of the invention AMI Improvement
described in said letters patent, and
particularly recited in said claim 20
(6J That the defendant Marvin b
VanNess, has infringed upon said let. |