552 



THE INDIA RUBBER WORLD 



[July 1, 1916. 



A PROMISING YOUMG MAN. 



Eugene Clifton Squires died June 7, at Grand Rapids, Michi- 

 gan, aged 19 years. He was the youngest son of Arthur C. 

 Squires, the veteran rubber man, and at the time of his death 

 was associated in the retail rubber 



; 1 business with his brother, Arthur R. 



^^JU^ Squires, in the Squires Rubber Co., of 



^^B^^^^ the above mentioned city. 



^^^^^^ Born in Brooklyn, New York, June 



»7 <> 5, 1897, where his boyhood days were 



^fc- " passed, he later moved to Akron. Ohio, 



7^1^' ^^^^ with his parents and attended the High 



^t^^K^^^^^ School in that city, finishing his edu- 

 ^^^^^^l^^^^l at Keyport. New Jersey, 



^^^^^^^^^^^^k he, also the 



^^^^^^^^^^^^1 rubber business under the direction 



He soon developed an aptitude for 

 drawing and mechanical design, that 

 was applied in his study of rubber 

 devices, in which he was particularly in- 



E. C. Squires. 



manufacture and 

 terested. 



He will long be remembered by his many friends and business 

 associates for his frank, genial manner and lovable disposition. 



Henry S. Jones, formerly with the Converse Rubber Co. and 

 later a valued employe of The B. F. Goodrich Co. at its Boston, 

 Massachusetts, office, died at his home in Stoughton, Massachu- 

 setts. June 4, aged 65 years. 



The many friends of A- R. Duryee, the veteran rubber su- 

 perintendent, will share with him his sorrow over the loss of 

 his son Robert, who died recently at Saranac Lake, New York, 

 at the age of 18. 



JUDICIAL DECISIONS. 



I J. COOPER RUBBER CO. VS. JOHNSON. A suit was 

 • instituted by the I. J. Cooper Rubber Co., an Ohio corpora- 

 tion, to recover from Johnson and others, as sureties on a bond 

 executed by the Standard \'u!canizing & Tire Co., a Tennessee 

 corporation, as principal. 



Following the terms of a contract, the rubber company con- 

 signed tires to the Tennessee corporation which had executed 

 a bond to secure the rubber company against breach of contract 

 by the Standard Vulcanizing & Tire Co. 



The defense of the sureties was that the complainant rubber 

 company had not complied with the Tennessee foreign corpora- 

 tion acts, and was doing business in that State through the agency 

 of the tire company ; that it could not, therefore, maintain the suit. 

 The Chancery Court sustained this defense. The plaintiffs ap- 

 pealed and the Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed the decision 

 of the court below. Held, that a foreign corporation which con- 

 signed tires for sale to a company in the State, was not doing 

 business within the State to render necessary compliance with the 

 foreign corporation act as a condition precedent to its right to 

 recover from the sureties, since the business of a factor or 

 commission merchant, one whose business is to receive and sell 

 goods for commission, is not the conduct of an agency or business 

 for the consignor of the goods. The factor sells to customers 

 at his own risk and the consignor does not exclusively own the 

 proceeds (182 Southwestern Reporter, 593). 



Blackwood Tire & Vulcanizing Co. vs. Auto Storage Co. 

 The defendant sold an automobile to one Cooper, retaining title. 

 Thereafter Cooper bought from the plaintiff, and fitted to the 

 machine, certain tire casings ; plaintiffs not retaining title. The 

 machine was not fully paid for and the defendant took possession, 

 and sold it. Cooper made no claim to the tires when defendant 

 acquired the machine and made no objection to its sale. After 

 the sale, however, at the instance of the plaintiffs, Cooper sold. 



or purported to sell the tire casings to the plaintiff, their value 

 at that time to be credited on Cooper's account. Suit was brought 

 on this alleged title and the tire casings were replevied. The 

 trial court dismissed the suit and an appeal was taken before 

 the Court of Civil Appeals, which affirmed this judgment. Appeal 

 was then taken before the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Held, 

 that both courts were correct, that, where the purchaser of an 

 automobile (title to which is retained by the seller) fits the 

 machine with tires, and the seller on non-payment recovers the 

 machine, title to the tires passes to the seller, the seller of the 

 casings not having retained title to them, such being the rule 

 of "accession" which supports the right of the owner of corporeal 

 property, real or personal, to any increase thereof from any cause, 

 either actual or artificial (182 Southwestern Reporter, 576). 



In the Matter of an Application for the Revocation of 

 William Taylor's Patent. In 1905 a patent was granted for 

 "An application in golf balls." The specification stated that the 

 principal object of the invention was to obtain better results in 

 the flight of the ball than had been possible with balls of known 

 types. One of the claims was "A golf ball having a spherical 

 surface pitted with isolated cavities, forming the cavities sub- 

 stantially circular in plan, with steep sides and fiat or concave 

 bottoms and of a depth not exceeding one-eighth of their dia- 

 meter." In other claims it was stated that the cavities were to 

 be semi-elliptical in section, the minor axes being radial to the 

 ball, and, also, the cavities were to be of a diameter not less than 

 9 hundredths, nor greater than 15 hundredths of an inch, and of 

 a depth not exceeding 14 thousands of an inch. The specification 

 stated that preferably the cavities should occupy not less than a 

 quarter, nor more than three quarters of the surface of the ball. 

 On a petition for the revocation of the patent, the petitioners 

 alleged anticipation by certain specifications, prior public use, 

 want of subject matter, and want of utility. At the hearing the 

 holders of patent contended that their experiments, made with a 

 driving machine, showed that the patented golf balls had a better 

 fiight than certain balls having a different marking. It was 

 proved that it had long been customary to make indentations in 

 the surface of golf balls to improve the flight, and that at the date 

 of the patent there were golf balls with projections in the form 

 of a segment of a sphere and balls with corresponding 

 depressions, also balls with circular depressions produced by a 

 punch, and balls with raised lines or ridges on their surface. 

 Held at the trial, that the patentee had not shown what particular 

 depth of the depressions or steepness of their sides was the 

 best; that he had not exactly specified the improvement claimed; 

 and that the patent was invalid for want of subject-matter. An 

 order for revocation was made. The respondents to the petition 

 appealed to the Court of Appeal, and this court held, that the 

 patent was invalid for want of novelty and of subject-matter. 

 The appeal was dismissed with costs (Central Court of Appeal, 

 London, February 1, 1916). 



WINS FIGHT OVEB TRADE NAME. 



The Newark, New Jersey, District Federal Court, on June 

 8, 1916, filed a decision enjoining the F. W. Devoe-C. T. 

 Reynolds Co. from the use of the word "rubberset" or any 

 other name resembling it. This means that the Rubberset 

 Co., of Newark, has won its second suit in defense of its 

 trade name. To establish the name, the company has spent 

 thousands of dollars annually. The first suit was brought 

 against the Rubber Bound Brush Co., Belleville, New Jersey. 



It was decided in favor of the plaintiffs and the decision 

 was later upheld in the Court of Errors. 



JAR RINGS IN GERMANY. 



Owing to the scarcity of rubber in Germany, and the nec- 

 essary use of reclaimed rubber, it is now permissible to use 

 compounds containing not over 1 per cent of lead for the 

 manufacture of jar rings for canned fruits, etc. Rubber 

 nipples for nursing children must, however, be lead free. 



