Summary

Samuel Blatchford Flower v. City of Detroit — Opinion of the Court

Infringement is alleged only of claims 1 and 3 of the reissue. As to the casing, C, of the third claim, it cannot, any more than the casing, C, of the first claim, be held to cover a casing which has the independent up and down motion referred to. Such casing must be construed to be the casing exhibited in the drawing annexed to the original patent; that is, one in which the up and down play is restricted by the overlapping bead or flange. On any other construction' claim 3 is an unlawful expansion, in regard to the casing, of what is found in the original patent.
Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford Flower v. City of Detroit — Opinion of the Court

This process of freezing causes the surrounding earth, by its expansion, to lift or upheave, and thus be liable to derange the hydrant or plug. This upheaval or movement is received by the casing, C, which, by its capability of sliding loosely up and down, will accommodate the upheaval of the earth above mentioned, without any liability to derange the plug or hydrant.
Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford Flower v. City of Detroit — Opinion of the Court

B is the horizontal section which is connected with the 'water-main' and which forms the valve-chamber.
'C is a loose casing around the hydrant tube for protecting the tube from dirt, etc. D is the cylinder valve which has its seat at its lower end, on elastic or leather packing, secured in a groove, as seen in the drawing at a. E is a rod, having a screwthread on its upper end, by which the valve IS OPERATED. F IS A SLEEVE-NUT, which engages with the screw on the rod, raising and lowering it as the nut is turned.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature