Audubon Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Iowa) 1894-1925, 1916-05-04


extent that about ninety percent OF
all the hand power washing machines
being sold in the United States, are
made under the Stocking & Menden.
hall patent, or use of the principles
Iof their machines. There have been
over 100000 of these machines made
and sold by washing machine manu-
facturers in the State of Iowa, alone
Among the companies who are manu-
featuring this machine in Iowa, under
the Stocking & Mendenhall patent,
are:
One Minute Manufacturing Co., OF
Newton, Iowa.
The Maytag Company, of Newton,
Iowa.
Voss Bros. Manufacturing Co., of
Davenport, Iowa.
White Lily Manufacturing Co., of
Davenport, Iowa.
Globe Manufacturing Co., of Perry,
Iowa.
Grinnell Washing Machine Co., of
Grinnell. Iowa.
The National Sewing Machine Co.,
of Belvidere, Illinois, very large
manufacturer of sewing machines,
and Montgomery Ward G. Co., large
mail order house of New York and
Chicago, relying on their great finan-
cial strength, commenced the sale of
washing macines, using all the prin-
ciple features of the Stocking G. Men
denhall invention, with the bold as
sertion that these patentees would
never dare to attack them, and II
they did their patent would be de-
| feated. Stocking & Mendenhall,
| through the Iowa Washing Machine
Company, (Which they controlled)
Immediately started suit for infringe
ment of their patent, in New York,
against Montgomery Ward & Co., as
that company is incorporated there
This suit was tried before United
States District Judge Mayer, in No.
vember, 1916 Judge Mayer held the
patent valid and infringed, enjoining
Montgomery Ward G. Co. from the
sale of these machines. He also held
that the Reissue of the original weak
patent, was proper, and within the
rights of the parties who had been
so unfortunate as to have improper
advice at the time of making their
application for a patent, but who,
when they discovered their mistake
In time, Immediately corrected 1t by
After the decision of Judge Mayer,
Montgomery Ward & Co. took an ap-
peal to the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals, the highest and fin
al tribunal in such cases, which has
now affirmed the District court, and
assured Stocking & Mendenhall full
protection for their important inven-
ton.
Mr.. Wallace r. Lane, for many
years well known in Des Moines, as a
patent lawyer, now of Chicago, has
represented Stocking & Mendenhall
and the Iowa Washing Machine Com
pany in numerous cases brought I'M
der their patents, all of which have
been decided in favor of these pat
ents.
So important did Judge Mayer con-
slider this case, as bearing on inven-
lions and the rights of humble inven-
tors generally, he says, in his opin-
ion,
There is touch of business ro-
nance in this suit concerning a wash
ing machine and an illustration of
the opportunities always open to in
genious men to make contributions
to the general good and to gather in
The prior art had developed a
large variety of machines which were
mainly because of the
wearing labor of operating them and,
in some instances, because the me-
chanism was so situated as to con-
stitute potential danger to the chill
dren of the modest household who
are so frequently about where these
machines are likely to be.
The patentees took perfectly we'll
known elements and so arranged
and combined them that they obtain
ed a result whereby women and even
children possessing little strength,
could with one hand easily and eff
fectively do the washing contemplat-
ed. The combination was new, as a
mere inspection of the patent and the
device under consideration will de-
monstrate when compared with the
prior art.
1t is not important to determine
what percentage of all the washing
machines sold throughout the coun-
try is represented by the sale of the
washing machines made under the
patent in suit. II is enough to say
that the sale of the device of the pat
ent represents several millions of
dollars at the price to dealers. and
more still, of course, at the price to
the buying public. This unquestioned
commercial utility is important only
as helping to resolve a doubt as to
patentable novelty, if such existed,
and as have indicated, think there
can be no doubt as to the validity of
the patent from the standpoint of in
vention.
The value OF the patent, to make a
trite observation, is best demonstart
ed by the substantial copy of it's con-
struction exemplified in defendants
or course, there are some
differences between defendants ma
chine and plaintiffs patent, but these
differences are of no consequence and
are useful only as talking point in
a law suit.
And thus, if am right, the ro-
nance ends with the success of the
patentees in securing and re-
for themselves, the fruits of
their ability instead of being COM
PEELED to look on as regretful specta-
tors while others enjoy what is justly
theirs
For the reasons above outlined,
the plaintiff may have the usual de-
cree with costs"
The United States Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, which
affirmed this decision of Judge Mayer.
the invention so meritor-
lous. that presiding Judge Coke, says,
In his opinion.
THAT the patentees have invented
q washing machine which is a mani
fest Improvement over anything
which preceded it in the art is too