Lindroth v. Walgreen Co., 407 Ill. 121, 94 N.E.2d 847 (Ill. 1950).

Suit was brought in the superior court of Cook County in behalf of Bruce Lindroth, a minor, against Knapp-Monarch Company, manufacturer, and Walgreen Company, seller of an electric vaporizer, for personal injuries to said minor as a result of burns received in a fire which appellee claims was caused by such vaporizer. The cause was tried by a jury and a verdict was returned against both defendants for $65,000. Motions for a new trial, in arrest of judgment and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict were overruled, after which judgment was entered on the verdict. Leave to appeal being granted, appellants, Knapp-Monarch Company and Walgreen Company are here seeking to reverse this judgment which was affirmed by the Appellate Court.

The complaint alleged that Knapp-Monarch Company carelessly and negligently manufactured and sold, with knowledge that it would ultimately be offered for sale to the general public, a vaporizer that was defective and dangerous, in that when used in accordance with the printed directions accompanying it and in the manner and for the purpose intended, it was likely to melt and set fire to nearby objects and cause persons using it to be severely burned, and was therefore an inherently dangerous instrument; that it negligently failed to provide a cutout device which would automatically cur off the current before the vaporizer reached the temperature at which it was likely to set fire to surrounding objects and cause persons using it to be burned; that it failed to properly inspect and test said vaporizer and negligently represented to the public generally that said vaporizer was safe for the use for which it was intended, and that no danger from flame or fire could be incurred in so using it.

The complaint further alleged that the Walgreen Company acquired said vaporizer and offered it to the public for sale; that the mother of plaintiff purchased the vaporizer from Walgreen Company and made known to it the particular purpose for which it was required, and relied upon the seller’s judgment and upon the representations of both appellants that the vaporizer was reasonably fit for the purpose intended and that no danger from flame or fire would be incurred in using it; that Walgreen Company negligently sold the plaintiff’s mother a vaporizer that was dangerous and defective in that when used in the manner and for the purpose for which it was intended the metal thereof was likely to melt and set fire to the surrounding objects and cause persons using it to be severely burned; that it negligently sold plaintiff’s mother a vaporizer which was not reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was intended to be used, because when used in the manner and for the purpose intended it was likely to set fire to surrounding objects and cause persons using to be severely burned, and thereby negligently breached its warranty given by virtue of the provisions of section 15 of the Uniform Sales Act, (Ill.Rev.Stat.1939, chap. 121 1/2, par. 15,) that the said vaporizer was reasonably fit for such purpose; that it expressly warranted the said vaporizer to be safe for use without attention for at least two hours; that such warranties were believed and relied upon.

The answer of Knapp-Monarch Company admitted it manufactured a device known as a Kwikway Electric Vaporizer, but denied all other allegations.

The answer of Walgreen Company admitted it sold to the public at retail vaporizers manufactured by Knapp-Monarch Company and denied all other allegations.

The record discloses that on May 8, 1940, appellee, fourteen months of age, was seriously burned while lying in a crib in an upstairs room of his home as a result of fire reaching his crib and igniting that part of his snuggle-bunny (a loose sack-like blanket) adjacent to the left side of his head and face. The crib in which he was resting was about four and one-half feet long and two and one-half feet wide, and stood with head to the north in the northeast corner of a room about eleven by twelve feet with a ceiling height of eight feet. The room faced the west, having two windows to the front and one window on the north side. A double-deck bunk with head to the west stood along the north wall just west of the window. Lace curtains at the north window hung down to a point just below the sill or just to the top of the baseboard. There was an electric outlet or wall socket below and to the west of the north window for the connection of electrical appliances.

Appellee’s mother had used a vaporizer in his room prior to the date in question but it was broken and she purchased a new one from the Walgreen Company, manufactured by the Knapp-Monarch Company. The old vaporizer had an automatic cutout which stopped the flow of electricity into the heating element after a certain temperature had been reached, usually after the water had all evaporated. The mother inquired of the saleslady at Walgreen’s if the Qwikway vaporizer she was considering had an automatic cutout and was advised that it did not have such device. The patent application provided for an automatic cutout which was found by the manufacturer, working with the inventor, to be not dependable and was not used in the manufacture of the article.

Some makes of vaporizers had cutouts which operated successfully, while other makes did not have such devices. The saleslady stated in substance that the vaporizer would not boil dry for about two hours if filled with water according to the directions. The mother testified that by ‘about two hours’ she had in mind that it would run at least for an hour or from one hour to an hour and a half anyway without being watched and without boiling dry. The saleslady told her that a doctor in the neighborhood was using one of these vaporizers for his patients and that he recommended it. It was explained to the motion that there were directions in the container which she should follow and, which, according to the mother’s testimony, she did follow. She purchased the vaporizer and took it home. She did not purchase a new electric cord with which to attach it to the wall outlet but used an old one that had been in use for about a year.

The directions with the vaporizer read to fill the container about three quarters full of water which brought the water to within an inch or an inch and a half of the top. Above the container was a place for medicated cotton through which the vapor would pass. Below the container was the heating element, and immediately below that was an asbestos disk about one-eighth inch thick and four inches in diameter held in position by a spring in the bottom plate.

Soon after returning home, the mother went into the kitchen and filled the container with tap water to within about an inch and a half from the top and found no leak. She then took it up to the bathroom and plugged it into an electric outlet, and in about four minutes the water began to vaporize. She testified: ‘There were no leaks in this container that I could observe.’ She then disconnected it, sponged off appellee, rubbed medicine on his chest, placed a snuggle-bunny around him, zipped it up under his chin and placed him in the crib for a nap. The maid had just brought up a nursing bottle containing orange juice which was given to him. The mother then placed a doll’s high chair about one foot west of the baby’s crib and near the middle of it or about two and one-fourth feet from the north window. She then set the vaporizer on the chair and plugged it into the wall socket near the north window.

The doll’s chair was wooden, had four posts or legs, a seat about five inches square and a small foot rest in front. The back was not solid but consisted of a cross-piece supported by three little rungs. There was an arm rest on each side, also supported by a rung in each corner. It resembled very much a baby’s high chair cut down to doll’s size. The seat was about even in height to that part of the crib upon which the baby lay. The spout of the vaporizer was placed so that the vapors would go up over the baby’s nose. Vapor was soon noticed coming from the spout, whereupon the mother left the room. In a few minutes she returned, peeped into the room and saw that the orange juice had been consumed and that the baby was just turning onto his stomach. At that time the vaporizer was operating properly and emitting vapor more satisfactorily than did the old one. At no time did the mother notice anything wrong with the vaporizer. She noticed no leakage of water and according to her testimony it was operating properly when she last saw it before the fire.

After peeping into the room, the mother went down stairs and within a period of between thirty and forty-five minutes a neighbor lady rushed over and excitedly announced that smoke was coming from an upstairs window. The mother rushed to the child lifted him from the crib and carried him from the smoke filled room. The snuggle-bunny was burning near the left side of his head and face. She tore it from him, rushed him downstairs and to the hospital. He was found to be suffering from third degree burns and was severely and permanently injured.

A lady who had been visiting with the mother just prior to the alarm immediately thereafter called the fire department. The fire occurred about 5 o’clock in the afternoon. After the baby had been removed, two volunteer firemen were the first to enter the room and they found it full of smoke. They opened the windows and extinguished the fire. One of the firemen testified that the electric cord was already detached from the vaporizer at that end but was still in the wall socket. An examination of the cord showed the insulation worn and frayed and some wire exposed at the vaporizer end but it was not burned away at that end. Where it was connected with the wall socket the insulation had burned off for a distance of four or five inches leaving the wires exposed. The hard rubber knob or plug at this end of the cord was burned and had melted out of shape. The wallpaper around the socket at the north wall was burned. The fireman saw the vaporizer on the doll chair but did not remove it. He tried to get the stuff that was burning out of the room, bed-clothing, a mattress and part of the double-deck bed. The curtains had been burned off.

The wooden double-deck bed, particularly the upper portion of it at the foot end was burning. The fireman did not touch the electric cord for fear it would be too hot. He did not know whether there was any water in the vaporizer but said that it was not red or glowing that he noticed. He testified that the vaporizer was midway between the head and foot of the crib right along side of the bed, maybe not up against the bed but a couple of inches away. He did not pay any particular attention to the stand that the vaporizer was on but noticed that it was burning around the top. He noticed something else burning at that place, the stuff that was around the outer edges of the vaporizer. it was a black substance and appeared to be like burned cloth. The evidence shows the vaporizer was set on top of a pot holder, the texture of which is not clearly shown but the mother thought the outer covering was cloth with some sort of stuffing inside.

The distance between the crib and the double-deck bed was about two and one-half feet and the stand upon which the vaporizer stood was placed approximately half way between them. After the fire was extinguished the vaporizer was found to be blackened by smoke and soot. Part of the container had melted and a portion of the molten aluminum had dropped down to the seat of the chair. The heating element was found to be working properly when tested after the fire. The back and arms of the chair with their supporting rungs were practically all consumed by the fire and the surface of the seat was charred but had not disintegrated. The mother testified that she did not connect any sort of cloth, sheet, towel or pillow slip to the vaporizer nor did she place any such material against it or any part of it and that there was no cloth or any material extending from the crib, nor did she place any drape or blanket or cloth or anything like that around the bottom of the vaporizer.

The evidence shows that through literature the manufacturer represented that the vaporizer was safe and that there was no danger from flame occurring as a result of its use.

There was a great deal of expert testimony concerning the construction of the vaporizer, explaining its component parts, showing how it operated and indicating the various tests to which it and like instruments had been subjected and the result of those tests. This testimony would serve a purpose if we were considering the weight of the evidence, but inasmuch as we are not, that phase of the case will not be discussed.

In response to special interrogatories the jury answered that the vaporizer was an inherently dangerous instrument and that the mother was not guilty of negligence which contributed to cause the accident and injury complained of. The mere fact that the fire occurred, resulting in an injury to appellee, does not authorize the presumption or inference that the appellants or either of them were responsible therefor. The burden was on the appellee to prove that the vaporizer caused the fire. Huff v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 362 Ill. 95, 199 N.E. 116; Rotche v. Buick Motor Co., 358 Ill. 507, 193 N.E. 529; Bowman v. Woodway Stores, Inc., 345 Ill. 110, 177 N.E. 727.

The errors assigned are as follows: (1) That defendants’ motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been sustained by the trial court; (2) that it was error to submit interrogatory No. 1 to the jury; (3) that plaintiff’s attorney made improper and prejudicial argument to the jury, constituting reversible error.

The crucial question presented is whether it was error for the trial court to overrule defendants’ motions for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

A motion for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict presents the single question whether there is in the record any evidence which, standing alone and taken with all its intendments most favorable to the party resisting the motion, tends to prove the material elements of his case. Gorczynski v. Nugent, 402 Ill. 147, 83 N.E.2d 495; Weinstein v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 389 Ill. 571, 60 N.E.2d 207.

There is considerable argument over evidence in the record tending to show that the fire might have been caused by other agencies than the vaporizer. This court, of course, on the contention here in issue, is not concerned with the weight or credibility of the evidence, but only with the narrow question whether there is any evidence, together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, which would justify submission of the case to the jury.

The following salient facts appear: The vaporizer was purchased under the express warranty that it was safe for its intended use. It was placed in operation in accordance with directions prepared by the manufacturer and delivered by the seller. The plaintiff’s evidence is that forty-five minutes later the vaporizer was dry and melted and the room in which it was placed was in flames. There is no question but that the heat of the molten metal was sufficient to ignite the doll chair on which the vaporizer was sitting and which was burning under and around the vaporizer when the fire was discovered. No one saw the vaporizer melt or the fire start and the ultimate question is whether the fire was caused by a defect in the vaporizer. If, from the circumstances revealed by the evidence, it is reasonable to infer that the fire was caused by a defect in the vaporizer the case was properly submitted to the jury, otherwise not.

The key point of the controversy is appellants’ contention that the fact of defect must be proved before it may be inferred that such defect caused the fire and the injury complained of. There being no eyewitnesses, the determination of this contention must be found in the circumstances revealed by the evidence, if at all. The metal of the container was melted. The vaporizer contained within it a source of intense heat. It is clear from the evidence that a properly constructed vaporizer could not melt itself down and it would seem inescapable that if the vaporizer did in fact melt by the application of its own heat, it was defective. It is apparently the appellants’ contention that before that conclusion may be reached it must appear that some physical evidence of improper construction of the vaporizer must be found. The only physical fact proved from which any inference of defect could be based is that the container was melted. Is that such a circumstance as to be a basis for a reasonable inference of defect?

Colbert v. Holland Furnace Co., 333 Ill. 78, 164 N.E. 162, 60 A.L.R. 353, a cold-air grating was installed by the defendant and a year later it gave way under the plaintiff’s weight causing the injury complained of. The cleat which held the grating was in evidence and appeared to be cross-grained and a break in it appeared which followed the cross-graining. Because of the circumstances of the broken cleat this court held that the jury could reasonably infer that it was defective and that its defect caused the injury.

In Showalter v. Western Pacific Railroad Co., 16 Cal.2d 460, 106 P.2d 895, deceased was found fatally injured during the switching of certain cars in a railroad yard. The question was whether the injury was caused by the negligence of defendant’s employees in moving the cars. There was no eyewitness but there was evidence that the defendant’s employees jostled the cars at about the time and at the place when the injury occurred without first ascertaining the whereabouts of deceased. The California court held that the jury could reasonably infer that such jostling of the cars knocked the deceased off the car on which he was riding and caused the injury. The presence, in the circumstances of that case, of all the necessary facts from which the injury could have resulted was the basis of that decision. Here, the vaporizer contained all the requirements for its own destruction if it was defective, and it was in fact destroyed.

In E. K. Wood Lumber Co. v. Anderson, 9 Cir., 81 F.2d 161, the deceased, a fisherman, was found drowned, his boat destroyed, and on a piece of it was a smear of red paint. It appeared that defendant’s steamer was plying the waters in which deceased was drowned at the time and place in question and that it was the only such vessel in the vicinity. Its hull was painted red. There was no eyewitness but the court held a reasonable inference could be drawn that defendant’s steamer collided with and destroyed the deceased’s boat and caused his death. The basis of decision was that, all circumstances being present necessary to cause the result, the causative fact could be reasonably inferred. Here, the vaporizer contained all the elements necessary to cause the fire, if it was defective. The circumstances show that it was in fact melted and that a fire existed. It would seem that the existence of a defect could reasonably be inferred. In the cited case the deceased was dead and his boat destroyed and it was held reasonable to infer that defendant’s steamer destroyed the boat and caused the drowning. Here, the container was melted and the room was ablaze in forty-five minutes.

In Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 66 S.Ct. 740, 744, 90 L.Ed. 916, the deceased, a switch tender, was found dead alongside defendant’s railroad tracks. The evidence showed he had been struck in the head by some object which fractured his skull and caused his death. There was no eyewitness. It was shown that during the time that deceased was at the place of his injury a train passed which was equipped with a mail hook which, if it was extended, could have struck the deceased and inflicted the injury. The question was raised as to whether the jury could reasonably infer from these facts that the hook struck and killed deceased. It was not shown that the hook was in fact extended at the time and place of deceased’s injury, and it did appear that, except for an elevation in one place in the ground along the track, the hook, even if extended, was too high to have struck the deceased standing on the ground. The court held the case, on this evidence, was properly submitted to the jury, and that it could reasonably be inferred that the death was caused by the extended hook. It was there said, ‘Whenever facts are in dispute or the evidence is such that fair-minded men may draw different inferences, a measure of speculation and conjecture is required on the part of those whose duty it is to settle the dispute by choosing what seems to them to be the most reasonable inference. Only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached does a reversible error appear.’

In the case of Tennant v. Peoria, & Pekin Union Railway Co., 321 U.S. 29, 64 S.Ct. 409, 412, 88 L.Ed. 520, the court, in holding the evidence was sufficient to submit the case to the jury, said, ‘The focal point of judicial review is the reasonableness of the particular inference or conclusion drawn by the jury.’ In the instant case the evidence shows without dispute that the vaporizer was placed in operation according to directions and that forty-five minutes later it was melted and the room was afire. It is also undisputed that a properly constructed vaporizer could not have melted under those conditions. It seems that the jury could reasonably draw the conclusion that the vaporizer involved here was defective.

Devine v. Delano, 272 Ill. 166, 111 N.E. 742, Ann.Cas.1918A, 689, and Town of Cicero v. Industrial Comm., 404 Ill. 487, 89 N.E.2d 354, this court held the rule to be that reasonable inferences may be drawn from established facts and all that can be reasonably required to establish controverted facts, whether the evidence be direct or circumstantial, is that the evidence creates a greater or less probability leading, on the whole, to a satisfactory conclusion.

In the instant case appellants’ position seems to be that the melted condition of the container is not any evidence of defect and that when the evidence favorable to plaintiff is considered, it must be considered as if the vaporizer had not melted and was in good condition after the fire. Obviously, if the vaporizer had been in the same condition after the fire as it was in before, then an inference of defect would be pure conjecture and the jury could not have reached such a conclusion. The record discloses, however, that the vaporizer was melted, a fact which appellants argue could not have been caused by the vaporizer itself. It is that fact which gives rise to the inference drawn below that the vaporizer, being defective, destroyed itself and caused the fire. The fact the melt occurred in a small area of the container’s surface and its degeneration was not general, points to a reasonable inference that the defect was localized in that small area. The fact that there is evidence that might have been a reasonable basis for inference that the fire was caused by a defective cord, and that the melting was a result of the fire and not its cause, is all beside the point. The inquiry here is whether the result reached below was one which is reasonable on the facts in evidence, not whether other conclusions might also have been reached.

Carter v. Yardley Co., 319 Mass. 92, 64 N.E.2d 693, 164 A.L.R. 559, the plaintiff suffered burns after the use of perfume manufactured by the defendant. The particular ingredient in the perfume which caused the burns was not established. The plaintiff there introduced several witnesses who had suffered similar burns from the perfume and the court held that such evidence was properly submitted to the jury to show the probability that the burns were caused by some harmful ingredient in the perfume. In that case, as in this, the precise nature of the defect in the perfume was not shown, but the fact that the plaintiff was burned was held sufficient to raise a probability that a defect existed. In the instant case it could as well be said that the fact the vaporizer was melted and the room was ablaze was sufficient to raise the probability that the melting and fire was the result of some defect in the vaporizer.

While it is the rule that where circumstantial evidence is relied upon to prove a fact, the circumstances must be proved and not themselves presumed, Ohio Building Safety Vault Co. v. Industrial Board, 277 Ill. 96, 115 N.E. 149, that rule is not offended by the result reached below in the instant case. The circumstances of the melting of the container in one small area of its surface is a circumstance from which a reasonable inference may be drawn that a defect was present at that point. The fact that the evidence shows that a sound vaporizer could not and would not have melted as this one did proves nothing with regard to the vaporizer involved here but is additional support for an inference that, since this on did melt, it must have been defective.

The argument of appellants that the melting was due to the heat of the fire and not that of the heating element in the vaporizer is likewise based on an inference, for there is no direct evidence to support it. A verdict may not be set aside merely because the jury could vave drawn different inferences or because judges feel that other conclusions than the one drawn would be more reasonable. Jefferson Ice Co. v. Industrial Comm., 404 Ill. 290, 88 N.E.2d 837; Heiting v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co., 252 Ill. 466, 96 N.E. 842, Ann.Cas.1912D, 451; Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co., 321 U.S. 29, 64 S.Ct. 409, 88 L.Ed. 520. There is no complete absence of probative facts to support the inference drawn here and therefore the trial court properly overruled appellants’ motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Appellants also urge error in the submission to the jury of the special interrogatory which reads, ‘Was the vaporizer in question when used in accordance with the printed directions accompanying it in the manner and for the purpose intended, an inherently dangerous instrument?’ The complaint in this case alleges that the vaporizer was inherently dangerous and defendants denied it. It was one of the issues in the case and defendant Knapp-Monarch Company caused the jury to be instructed that before plaintiff could recover it must have been proved that the defendant knew or by reasonable care should have known the vaporizer here was a potentially dangerous instrumentality and if there were any defect in it, ‘it was reasonably certain to endanger the life or limb of other persons than the purchaser when used in the manner and for the use intended.’

In view of the defendant’s position in that instruction, it is hard to see how the interrogatory was so prejudicial as to require reversal. A judgment will not be reversed for error unless it appears such error affected the outcome below. Pease v. Kendall, 391 Ill. 193, 63 N.E.2d 2; Devine v. Delano, 272 Ill. 166, 111 N.E. 742, Ann.Cas.1918A, 689.

Defendants also contend that plaintiff’s attorney made improper argument to the jury by referring to judgments obtained in other actions and by referring to defendants as ‘large corporations.’ No objection was made at the time the argument was made, nor was the court requested to take any action regarding the remarks until after the verdict. This question is not open for consideration in this court in such case. People v. Switalski, 394 Ill. 530, 69 N.E.2d 315; Forest Preserve Dist. v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 351 Ill. 48, 183 N.E. 819; Chicago City Railway Co. v. Gemmill, 209 Ill. 638, 71 N.E. 43.

Only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion drawn by the jury is it reversible error to overrule a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We are of the opinion that here there is an evidentiary basis for the jury’s verdict and that the jury is free to disregard or disbelieve whatever facts are inconsistent with its conclusion. The Appellate Court’s function is exhausted when that evidentiary basis becomes apparent, it being immaterial that the court might draw a contrary inference or feel that another conclusion is more reasonable. We are of the opinion the court properly overruled defendants’ motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and therefore the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

CRAMPTON, J., dissenting.

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE

ABRAHAM RANDEL, OF VERONA, NEW YORK

MODE OF CONSTRUCTING CARRIAGE AND WAGON WHEEL HUBS FOR CONTAINING
OIL, &c.

Specification of Letters Patent No. 374, dated September 8, 1837.

To all whom it may concern:

Be it known that I, ABRAHAM RANDEL, of the town of Verona, in the county of Oneida and State of New York, have invented a new and useful Improvement in Hubs for Wagons and other Carriages; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full and exact description.

The nature of my invention consists in constructing a wagon or other carriage hub of cast iron or other metal hollow, usually in three parts (so as to have the shape and size of those made of wood and metal combined) and thus providing a large cavity for oil, and by means of ribs or partitions in the hub to supply the axle more efficiently than by any other means known to me.

To enable others skilled in the art to make and use my invention, I will proceed to describe its construction and operation. 1st. I make a cylindrical tube or pipe, as A, A, A, Fig. 1, seven or eight inches long about three eighths of an inch thick, the internal diameter to correspond with the size desired for the axle (say 1 1/2 in the larger end, and 1 1/4 in the smaller end) on or around this pipe I have four circular plates or rims, as B, B, that at the larger end to be 4 1/2 inches in diameter, and that at the smaller end 3 ½ inches, about 1/8 of an inch thick; the two middle rims which are intended to receive the spokes are to be 5 1/2 inches in diameter 3/8 of an inch thick, and 1 ¾ inches apart; these are to have a screw thread, or other fixture cast on their outer edge to receive and hold the caps hereafter described. There are to be four, (more or less) partitions or ribs as C, running the length of the pipe and connecting the rims or plates. The ribs connecting the two middle rims in which the spokes are to be inserted must rise above the rims so as to be even or level with the caps above mentioned, there may be any desired number of ribs in this part, or it may be so made as to receive the spokes in the usual manner. The ribs which extend from the middle part to each end, are to be of such height, that when the caps are screwed on, two of them, (one at each end, will fit closely to the caps, under these there is a funnel shaped hole, D, through the pipe to let the oil pass-freely to the axle. The other ribs are to be of such height as to leave sufficient space for the oil to pass freely between them, and the caps. 2d. The caps are to be of sufficient size as to fit on the middle rims B, and fit closely on the end rims and extend beyond them from ½ an inch to one inch so as to give them the appearance of a band extending over the end of the hubs. These may be as thin as is consistent with a due regard to strength, they may be of cast or wrought metal, and to have such molding or ornament on them as may be desired. 3d. When the caps are secured on the body of the hubs the space (if any there be) between the rims and caps may be closed with a mixture of glue and Spanish white, or any other substance that will retain oil. A small screw may pass through each cap into or against one of the rims or ribs to prevent the caps from ever jarring loose. There may also be a screw through each cap which when taken out leaves a place to supply the hubs with oil. When the hub is sufficiently supplied with oil or other lubricating substance, and as the wheel revolves, the oil is washed, up by the rib or partition, and thrown on, or in the hole D, in the pipe, a small portion of it passes through to the axle, and thus keeps it continually supplied with oil.

I do not intend to confine myself to any particular form or size. These must be varied to suit the different carriages they are intended for, and to suit the fancy of different persons.

I do not claim the casting of’ wagon or carriage hubs of metal merely; but

What I claim as my invention or improvement, and not heretofore known to the best of my knowledge, is-

The casting of hubs with hollow compartments for containing the oil, or other lubricating matter, having holes communicating with the axle, the compartments covered by screw boxes substantially as above described.

ABRAHAM RANDEL

Witnesses:
S. S. BREESE
JOHN LEE

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE

JASPER JOHNSON, OF GENESEO, NEW YORK

APPARATUS FOR DRAWING LIQUORS BY COMPRESSED AIR

Specification of Letters Patent No. 217, dated May 30, 1837.

To all whom it may concern:

Be it known that I, JASPER JOHNSON, of Geneseo, in the county of Livingston and State of New York, have invented a new and useful Improvement in Apparatus for Drawing Liquids, which is described as follows, reference being had to the annexed drawings of the same, making part of this specification.

A represents a cylinder supported by two standards upon the counter or in any other required position.

B is a piston working in the cylinder A, for compressing the air into the vessel containing the liquid to be drawn. C, a vertical tube leading from the cylinder to the liquor vessel for conveying the air to it from the cylinder; this tube also communicates with the spout for drawing the liquid, the communication being opened and closed by means of a cock hereafter described; the upper end of the tube enters into and extends as far as the center of the cylinder where it forms a seat in which the cock turns; between this end of the tube and where the piston works, is a partition pierced with an aperture coinciding with another aperture in the side of the tube toward it; in a line with these apertures on the opposite side of the tube is the spout E.

F is the cock pierced with an aperture from one side to the other, which, when the handle is parallel with the axis of the cylinder coincides with the apertures and spout and opens a communication with the external air and the cylinder. At right angles to this aperture, but not communicating with it, is a second aperture extending obliquely from the side of the cock down through the end thereof, which aperture is made to open a communication alternately with the cylinder and liquid vessel in compressing the air, and with the spout and this vessel in drawing the liquor. H the handle of the cock.

In compressing the air into the liquid vessel the cock is turned so as to bring the handle parallel with the axis of the cylinder, which brings the horizontal aperture in a line with the spout and cylinder, thus opening a communication between the latter and the external air; the piston is then drawn back which makes a partial vacuum in the cylinder which is instantly filled by fresh air - the cock is then turned at right angles to the cylinder (the handle being on the left as you stand in front of the spout) this closes the spout and opens a communication from the cylinder through the tube to the liquid vessel; the piston is then pushed forward which forces the air into the cylinder into the liquor vessel; the cock is then turned back to its former position which closes the communication to the liquid vessel, and again opens one to the external air as before, when the operation is repeated, and in this manner it is continued until the air in the barrel or other liquid vessel is sufficiently compressed.

The liquor is drawn by turning the cock so that the handle shall be in a position opposite to that in which it was placed, when compressing the air, that is on the right of the cylinder instead of the left which closes the communication from the liquor vessel to the cylinder and opens it to the spout through which the liquor is forced by the elastic power of the compressed air in the barrel or other vessel containing liquor to be drawn.

The invention claimed by the subscriber and which he desires to secure by Letters Patent consists:

In the addition of the before described oblique aperture to the cock of the apparatus for drawing liquids by compressed air.

JASPER JOHNSON

Witnesses:
J. YOUNG
WM. J. HAMILTON

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE

STEPHEN DOLE, OF CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE

IMPROVEMENT IN THE MODE OF MANUFACTURING SPLINTS FOR FRICTION-MATCHES

Specification forming part of Letters Patent No. 214, dated May 30, 1837.

To all whom it may concern:

Be it known that I, STEPHEN DOLE, of Concord, New Hampshire, have invented a new and useful Improvement in the Manufacture of Splinters to be Used in the Making of Friction-Matches, of which the following is a specification.

The object of this improvement is to prevent the ends of the matches to which the inflammable composition is applied from touching each other, by which the danger of their being casually set on fire is prevented; and the manner of making the splinters, with a view to accomplish this object, is claimed as the invention of said DOLE.

The splinters are made in the following manner: A block of dry pine or other suitable wood being prepared, of suitable length and dimensions, according to the judgment of the manufacturer, a suitable piece of cotton or linen cloth or other proper material is to be fastened by means of paste, glue, or other adhesive substance to one end of the block in such a manner as to cover the whole of such end. The other end is to be grooved by means of a saw or other suitable tool to the depth of one-third of an inch, or other convenient depth. The grooves are to be cut in two directions, crossing each other at right angles, or other convenient angle, and may be of the width of one-sixteenth to one-quarter of an inch, or other convenient width, and may be at such distance from each other as to leave the wood between them of a suitable size for the end of a splinter. The said block is then to be split from one end to the other by inserting a knife, chisel, or other proper tool into each of said grooves, thus making a collection of splinters, attached to each other at one end by the cloth or other material before mentioned, and the other ends, to which the inflammable composition is to be applied, being prevented from touching each other, partly by the other ends being confined together by the cloth or other material before mentioned, and partly by the form of the splinters, that part of them next to which the grooves are made being less than the other parts.

STEPHEN DOLE

Witnesses:
JNO. WHIPPLE
SAML. D. BELL

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE

DAVID B. NAPIER, OF CASEY COUNTY, KENTUCKY

CONSTRUCTION OF AND MODE OF APPLYING WATER TO TUB-WHEELS

Specification of Letters Patent No. 204, dated May 22, 1837.

To all whom it may concern:

Be it known that I, DAVID B. NAPIER, of the county of Casey and State of Kentucky, have invented a new and Improved Mode of Applying Water to Tub-Mills; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full and exact description, towit:

The nature of my improvement consists in the application of water to tub-mill wheels by two chutes through a block or blocks graduating them so as to keep the column of water solid and acting upon the wheel by pressure also the band to prevent the escape of water.

To enable others skilled in the art to make and use my invention I will proceed to describe its construction and operation.

The construction of the mill is after the manner of those in common use, with this exception: I have two chutes B the one passing immediately over the other-the water applied by the first chute at right angles with the buckets, and runs one third around the wheel; at the end of which the other chute commences and passes another third, acting on two thirds of the wheel at the same time, or more if necessary. The chutes are cut in a block of timber A of proper size, towit, for a wheel of three feet in diameter-the block should be four feet long and thirty inches by twenty for a three feet stone and six feet head. The columns should be seven by sixteen inches, towit, on the perpendicular line they should be sixteen inches, and on the horizontal line they should be seven inches-and the chutes should graduate to two thirds of the seven inches where they terminate. The trunks E are separate at the upper end, and inserted in the block of timber at the commencement of the chutes where the water makes its application and passes into the penstock between posts two feet apart. The trunks do not pass immediately over each other-but separate on the inside the penstock and at the end and are two feet square at the upper end for the purpose of drawing the gates with ease. The wheel at the outer end of the buckets is precisely the same in diameter as that of the stone-and the rimming is made three inches thick for the purpose of receiving an iron band C inserted into the block of timber. The band to go two thirds or more round the wheel. The wheel one and a half inch wide by one fourth of an inch thick-made rough on one edge like that of a saw, and on each side in the form of a file. The band inserted in the block one and a half inch from the outer circle that forms the column of water-made fast in a circular groove cut to fit it three fourths of an inch deep which would leave three fourths of an inch of the band to go into the wheel-the band is for the purpose of preventing the escape of the water between the block and the wheel thereby saving all the water in a proper position to act on the wheel. The buckets are made in the wheel so as to pass two thirds of the water discharged through the two chutes thereby forming a solid column of water two hundred and twenty four inches, two thirds of which is continually passing through the wheel-there are eight buckets in the wheel each three feet in diameter and seven by three and a half inches where the water is discharged.

A stone of four feet and under may be propelled by tub wheels; but over four feet does not answer well unless on large streams with high heads. A mill stone three and a half feet in diameter and a head of ten feet water requires grooves in the block seven by five inches. A three feet stone and a four feet head require seven and a half inches by fifteen. Should the block not be large enough to form the chutes, pin pieces of timber to them with a groove in them to form apart of the upper groove. The block is then placed and fastened on bearers of timber erected on each side of the wheel. The wheel being well trained on the shaft, and the spindle made true in the shaft-let down the wheel so the iron band in the block will not touch it-then place the block with the circles of the wheel and block-fix in the trunks and gates having the shaft exactly plumb-raise the gates just enough to let a sufficient quantity of water on the wheel to set it in motion; then raise the wheel gradually, the iron band will then cut a groove on the running of the wheel, this process should be continued until the wheel comes up to the block, then the wheel when ready for grinding is sunk one fourth of an inch below the block.

What I claim as my improvement and desire to secure by Letters Patent is the application of water to tub mill wheels by two chutes through a block or blocks-graduating them so as to keep the column of water solid and acting upon the wheel by pressure also the band to prevent the escape of water.

D. B. NAPIER

Witnesses:
W. SIMPSON
M. D. HARDIN

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE

NEHEMIAH P. STANTON, OF SYRACUSE, NEW YORK

IMPROVEMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF WATER WHEELS

Specification forming part of Letters Patent No. 201, dated May 23, 1837.

To all whom it may concern:

Be it known that I, NEHEMIAH P. STANTON, of Syracuse, in the county of Onondaga and State of New York, have invented a new and useful Improvement in Water-Wheels; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full description of the construction and operation of the said water-wheel as invented by me.

This water-wheel is constructed of a single shaft of any length fitted to the head and fall. The diameter of the shaft is equal to the proposed diameter of the wheel exclusive of the covering of the buckets hereinafter described.

For a horizontal wheel there is a waste turned down in the center from three to six inches deep and from one to two feet long. The depth and length, however, of this waste will be proportioned to the head and fall and quantity of water. From each end of this waste buckets are cut out of the shaft in a spiral or diagonal direction or form, approaching to within about two inches of the ends of the shaft, where, by means of the regular taper upon the bottom and sides of the space cut out between the buckets, they will come to the surface; or the shaft maybe turned down by a regular taper from about two inches from the ends to the waste first described, and diagonal or spiral buckets put onto the shaft where it is so tapered down each way from the waste. The number of buckets depends on the diameter of the wheel used. Over the buckets is to be made a strong covering of iron, cast or wrought, or a strong wood stave-work properly banded. Near the end of the shaft where the space between the buckets tapers to the surface of the shaft there is to be an aperture between each bucket for the discharge of the water off from one to three inches wide and from six to eight inches long proportioned to the size of the wheel and the quantity of water. The water thus introduced is discharged all around the shaft through these apertures upon the outside of the wheel. The water is introduced from the bottom of a flume through a trunk shaped like a scroll around the waste of the shaft, and is to escape between the buckets through these apertures upon the surface of the shaft at each end, as above described. It may also be introduced through a box constructed around the waste of the wheel, which is discharged as above described. There may be more than two wheels upon a shaft making a similar waste between each two wheels, and then there will be a gate and spout or trunk letting the water into the waste between each two wheels. When the wheel is made use of with a perpendicular shaft there is but half the number of buckets that there would be on a double wheel, as before described. The buckets and the space between them are in the same form, and the water is discharged through the apertures at the upper extremity of the spaces between the buckets upon the outside of the wheel. There is a socket-box let into the lower end of the perpendicular shaft and a standing point set into the block under the bottom of the shaft on which this socket-box runs. The water is let in from the flume through a spout or trunk at a proper depth below the shaft and winding upward once round to the top of the block on which the point stands. This spout or trunk brings in the water on the favorable side of the wheel. There is to be such a case or rim round the lower part of the wheel as to prevent the water from discharging any other way than through the wheel. This wheel, whether horizontal or perpendicular, will run entirely underwater as well as out. This water-wheel may be used for driving all kinds of machinery or mills where water-power is applied. It may also be used to elevate water to extinguish fires, or other purpose, by closely covering the part of the wheel where the water is discharged, and leaving it to escape through pipes or hose. The revolution of the wheel gives the water a centrifugal tendency, and the shape of the buckets and the points of escape are the most favorable for this tendency.

The invention or improvement which I claim in the above-described water-wheel is-

The construction of the diagonal or spiral tapering buckets with the discharge of the water on the extreme surface of the wheel or at the point of greatest length of lever.

Dated July 27, 1836.

NEHEMIAH P. STANTON

Witnesses:
DUDLEY P. PHELPS
JOHN WILKINSON

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE

ABRAHAM MORRISON, OF JOHNSTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA

MODE OF CONSTRUCTING BOATS FOR CANALS, BAYS, LAKES, AND NAVIGABLE RIVERS

Specification of Letters Patent No. 198, dated May 15, 1837.

To all whom it may concern:

Be it known that I, ABRAHAM MORRISON, of Johnstown, in the county of Cambria and State of Pennsylvania, have invented a new and Improved Mode of Constructing Boats for Canals, Bays, Lakes, and Navigable Rivers; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full and exact description of the same.

In giving my description, I shall assume certain admeasurements, and proportion of parts, and although I shall, in so doing, give such as I believe to be well calculated to answer the purpose intended, I do not intend to limit myself in these particulars, as much latitude may be allowed in these respects, while the principle upon which my improvement is dependent is still retained.

The form of the bottom of my boat is the reverse of that usually adopted, as, instead of being convex in the cross section, I make it concave in the said cross sections from stem to stern. In building a boat of sixty feet in length, I take plank twelve feet long, thirteen inches broad, and one and a half inches thick, and these I cut to a curve of nine inches in their whole length, so that in the middle they will be only four inches wide. Of these there may be twenty one pieces, which are to constitute the cross plank upon which the bottom and floor of my boat are to be fastened; the average distance apart of these cross pieces, when placed on edge, will be three feet. In building my boat, I first place these on edge, with the hollow side upward having first the side standards, rabbeted into and riveted fast to the ends of the cross plank, to which the side planks are to be spiked and so as to range properly, and then spike on the bottom; sheeting of inch and a quarter plank. In arranging the cross plank and side standards they are placed on a line of three fourths of the length of the boat, and thence, toward the bow, they are to have such an inclination as will elevate it about twelve inches. The side plank is put on upon the ends of the cross plank, and spiked or nailed or screwed to the side standards so as to be about two inches below their lower corners, and they will, consequently, project about an inch below the bottom sheeting; they are also to rise two inches above the floor, which will require plank of eighteen inches in width. The cross plank being thus secured together, while this part of the boat is bottom upward, it is then turned over, and the superstructure completed. A floor of strong inch plank is to be laid upon the cross pieces, and the side standards are to be raised, which may extend to the height of six feet above the floor, in a vertical line. The sides, top, stern, and bows may be finished in any way which may be preferred.

To give additional strength to this boat, I take two iron rods, each thirty feet in length, and three fourths of art inch in diameter, and extend them from side to side of the boat, so as to cross each other at, or near, the center, securing their ends firmly to the side plank, just below the floor. I also bolt the two sides together by means of six bars of iron of the same size, crossing the boat about two inches below the floor.

Having thus fully described the manner in which I construct my canal boats, I hereby declare that I rest my claim to invention solely upon-

The form which I give to the bottom of the boat, which is concave from stem to stern, and straight, with the exception of the elevation toward the bows, as hereinbefore fully set forth.

The interlineations are all inserted by myself before signing.

ABM. MORRISON

Witnesses:
SAML. KENNEDY
W. BARNETT

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE

MOSES BALDWIN, OF CINCINNATI, OHIO

SPRING-SADDLE

Specification of Letters Patent No. 186, dated April 29, 1837.

To all whom it may concern:

Be it known that I, MOSES BALDWIN, of the city of Cincinnati, county of Hamilton, and State of Ohio, have invented a new Improvement on Spring-Saddles for the Care and Safety of Both the Rider and Horse; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full and exact description of the said improvement.

My invention of the improvement referred to, consists in providing a forecrook and cantle with serpentine and spiral springs, which give motion to the seat and girths of the saddle at the same time, without interfering with the bars. The bars support the springs, and rest permanently on the horse. The serpentine springs are on extensions of the posterior spiral springs toward the forecrook, and form stirrup bars, that will release the rider in case of accidents. I add two webs termed thigh webs, to the number in former use, to support the rider above all hard substances. The thigh webs, also lessen the pressure upon the others, or seat webs. The two bars are made separate from the forecrook and cantle, and are coupled by a plate which answers for a crupper loop, and pivots for the spiral and serpentine springs. This plate being placed above the bars and before the cantle for the safety of the horse. The saddle is of the usual form, but from the manner of constructing it, it is strengthened (not weakened) by the weight of the rider.

To enable others skilled in the art to make and use my improvement, I will proceed to describe its construction and operation.

1st I construct my forecrook (see drawing No.1) in any of the known forms, with the addition however, of notches and pivots and the placing the plates of the forecrook upon the edge, to receive the bar, stirrup bars, and front spiral springs (see No.7). 2nd, The bars, (see No.2,) are made separate with notches and pivots in the upper edges, to support the spiral springs that brace the forecrook; and a piece of each spiral spring is continued over the bars, and serves as a spring to each stirrup bar, as the latter pass from the forecrook and are made fast to the bars. The plate with which I connect the bars is made of wire hammered in a cold state, and the holes are made with a drill. The plate is secured or fastened to the bars by rivets and burs. 3rd I construct my cantle, (No, 3,) with three notches, one for the crupper and loop, (see No.4) and two for the posterior spiral springs (see No.5,) which serve as bellies for the saddle, and springs for the cantle to act upon. These spiral springs rest upon pivots formed by the coupling plates. My cantle is seated upon the posterior end of the bars and spiral springs, in a moving position, riveted only to the latter.

4th I extend from the posterior, or last named spiral springs, two serpentine springs, one on each side of the saddle, (see No.6,) giving the proper form to secure the girths from below and the drawdowns from above. I add an extra pair of drawdowns for the buckles to receive the straps from those in former use. The serpentine springs are placed between the pad and flaps; and being connected with the stirrup bars, give motion to the forecrook.

What I claim as my improvement and desire to secure by Letters Patent are-

The two thigh webs and an additional pair of drawdowns, also the position of the springs and cantle plate, using for the purpose of making the two latter, (the springs and cantle plate,) iron, steel or brass wire, varying in size to suit the weight of the rider.

The advantages of my improvement over all others in former use, are the ease and security given to both the rider and the horse.

MOSES BALDWIN

Witnesses:
GEORGE HOLT
H. P. GAINES

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE

HUGH MOORE, OF NEW YORK, N. Y.

IMPROVEMENT IN THE MANUFACTURE OF HAT-BODIES

Specification forming part of Letters Patent No. 173, dated April 20, 1837.

To all whom it may concern:

Be it known that I, HUGH MOORE, of the city, county, and State of New York, have invented a new and Improved Body for Hats; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full and exact description of the same.

The body is formed of cloth, the warp of which is strong cotton-yarn and the weft of alternate layers of strong cotton-yarn and whalebone, or otherwise made of split whalebone, attached to any kind of cloth by an adhesive water-proof composition. The bodies of both kinds are joined at the sides by needle-work. The brims and crowns are made of the same material, and I have also made them with brims of canton-flannel and of felt and the crowns of layers of muslin of different degrees of strength.

What I claim as my invention, and desire to secure by Letters Patent, is-

The application of whalebone to hat-bodies, by which they will be rendered more elastic and durable than those made of felt; calico, or any other substance.

HUGH MOORE

Witnesses:
JOHN E. RICHARDSON
WILLIAM H. WRIGHT

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE

MERRITT BRADFORD, OF SAUGERTIES, NEW YORK

CONSTRUCTION OF STOVEPIPE AND DRUM

Specification of Letters Patent No. 153, dated March 25, 1837.

To all whom it may concern:

Be it known that I, MERRITT BRADFORD, of the town of Saugerties, in the county of Ulster and State of New York, have invented a new and useful Improvement in the Construction of Stove-Pipes and Drums; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full and exact description.

The nature of my invention consists in providing stove-pipes and drums with small inserted tubes by which currents of air are allowed to pass through said pipes and drums, whereby the heat that passes off with the smoke from ordinary pipes and drums is turned to advantage in increasing the warmth of the apartment without increasing the quantity of fuel consumed.

To enable others skilled in the art to make and use my invention, I will proceed to describe its construction and operation: I construct my stove-pipes and drums in any of the known forms, but in order to avail myself of the heat that in pipes and drums of ordinary construction, passes through the middle of the pipe and is carried off with the smoke, I insert small tubes of sheet iron, or other proper substance, at suitable distances from each other, making them fast to the pipe at its surface. If then the pipe is placed horizontally (for example) the inserted tubes will form perpendicular passages through the pipe, by which means currents of air will be established; the surrounding atmosphere, by the known laws of nature, will enter the lower extremity of the tube, become heated in its passage through the tube, and pass off at the upper extremity - all which will be made clear by the accompanying drawings.

What I claim as my invention, and desire to secure by Letters Patent, is-

The insertion of said tubes into stovepipes and drums, using in their construction any suitable material, and inserting them perpendicularly, horizontally or at any angle which may be desired.

MERRITT BRADFORD

Witnessed by-
JUDSON H. CALKIN
DAVID BIGELOW