THE CASH RAILWAY WEBSITE
|Home||Manufacturers||Cash Balls||Wire systems||Pneumatic systems||Locations||References||Patents|
1858. [Not relating to a cash carrier.] The Electric Telegraph Company installed a tube to its branch office in Mincing Lane in 1858. So that steam engines would not be needed at each end a 'vacuum reservoir' measuring 10 X 12 X 14 feet was constructed in a house in Mincing Lane. Once a carrier got stuck in the tube, causing the reservoir to implode and demolishing the wall of the house. "At the time the landlord of the house happened to be dining in the next room, and he suddenly found himself, his dinner and the door .. precipitated into the room amongst the debris of the chamber." Following this incident compressed air rather than vacuum was used.
1884. "The Lamson Cash Railway Company of Boston, Mass. filed a bill in yesterday in the United States Circuit to restrain the Continental Cash Car of Baltimore." The Sun, 6 May 1884
1884. "The Lamson Cash Railway company .. have brought suit against Willie (?) G. Burnham, formerly of this city and now manager of the Flagg Cash Carrier company, and against Abel T. Atherton of this city. It is charged that they have authorized and caused the publication of certain articles in the newspapers of Boston, which are not only injurious to the above company but false." Lowell Weekly Sun, 26 Jul. 1884, p.8. The Boston Post article is reproduced here.
1884. "The Flagg Cash Carrier Company has brought suits in the United States circuit court. In Boston vs. Shepard, Norwell & Co., Arthur G. Pollard and the Lamson Cash Railway for an infringement of the plaintiff's patent for carrying parcels and money to different parts of the store." Lowell Weekly Sun, 16 Aug. 1884, p.8
1886. "Before Judge Colt, in the United States circuit court at Boston, Wednesday, the case of the Lamson Cash Railway company and Edwin P. Osgood, in equity, was heard. The complainant charges the defendants with infringing three patents." Lowell Weekly Sun, 17 Jul. 1886, p.5
1887. "On the 16th of March, 1887, I filed a bill in equity on behalf of the Lamson Cash Railway Company against Wm. M. Whitney and others of Albany, in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York." Supreme Court, 1888, p.21
1887, 2 May. Lamson Cash Railway Co. v. Martin and others. "Held that, in view of the marked differences, the Martin system did not infringe the White patent." (Regarding patent no. 221,488 dated 11 Nov. 1879 granted to J.C.White.) Federal Reporter
1887. "Judge Brown, in the United States District Court, at Detroit, granted a decree for complainant in the suit for infringement of patent brought by the Rapid-Service Store Railway Company, of Detroit, against the Merchants' Store-Railway Company. of New York, and Taylor, Walfenden & Co., of Detroit. The judge made a liberal application of mechanical equivalents, and held that the prior patent of the complainant covered all devices for an original impulse to a cash-carrier traversing a permanent way." Hazel Green Herald, 2 Sep. 1887, p.2
1888. "A special from Mansfield says that C.E.Foster and Frank L.Freeman, of Washington, D.C., have brought suit against W.M.Sturges and the Barr Cash and Package Carrier Company for $75,000 for malicious libel. Suit has also been brought against the same parties for a like amount in the United States Court here on a similar charge by W.S.Lamson and Frank Means. The trouble grew out of the issuance of a circular containing alleged derogatory statements." The Semi Weekly Age, Coshocton Oh., 2 Nov. 1888, p.2
1889. "Action by the Lamson Consolidated Store Service Company against John W. Hart, sheriff of Albany county, the United States Store Service Company, and Gilbert M. Speir, Jr. " National Reporter System, New York (state). Supreme Court, 1889, p. 890
1890. Judge Colt of the United States circuit court for Massachusetts has decided in the case of the Consolidated store service company against the Lamson store service company - both being foreign corporations - that the defendants can be sued in this state. Lowell Daily Courier, 26 Mar. 1890, p.1
1891. Lamson Cash Railway Company, Complainant v. Henry L. Lovejoy, defendant. United States Circuit Court (Mass.) 330 pages. On Google books
1892. William Parsons' grocery store, Ontario. "Last Friday evening as Ernest Parsons was at work at the desk of Wm. Parsons' grocery store, he reached up to one of the handles which operates the cash railway carriages, and as is the custom pulled it down with a violent jerk. The string by which the handle was attached broke, and his hand, carried by the force exerted, went violently toward the desk. At that precise point was a bar in which pins are placed for the filing of sales items. His hand struck this and three of the pins entered his hand quite deeply. For a moment he did not notice the fact, and when he did he had considerable trouble in releasing his hand. Dr. Hawley dressed the hand, which has since caused considerable trouble, and has prevented him from working at the store." Ontario County Journal, 2 Sep. 1892
1892. Starr Cash Car Co. v. Reinhart. Action concerning the purchase of 15 cash carriers, sold by Starr to the defendants. It was alleged that the plaintiff took to themselves an existing system worth $150 and the defendants demanded a reduction for that amount. New York Common Pleas 2 Misc. 116 (N.Y. Misc. 1892)
1893. United States v. Patterson and others of National Cash Register Company. "Judge Putman of the United States Circuit Court has just given a decision sustaining the Sherman Anti-Trust Law. The decision is given in the case of .. officers of the National Cash Register Company, who are charged .. in connection with their dealings with the Lamson Cash Railway employees." New York Times, 2 Mar. 1893
1894. Osgood and Fessenden v. Lamson Cash Railway Company. "Boston, May 29 - Three verdicts for $17,250 each were returned in the third session of the superior court before Judge Bishop, in actions for malicious attachment brought by Edwin P.Osgood and Emily Fessenden against the Lamson Cash RAilway Company, George L.Ames and George M.Harris." Lowell Daily Sun, 29 May 1894, p.12
1895. Martin & Hill Cash-Carrier Co. v. Joseph C. Martin. Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit. 30 Dec. 1895. No. 97. For infringement of patents granted to the defendant for improvements in automatic cash-carrier systems for store service and assigned to the complainant company. The court held that there was no infringement. Federal Reporter 71 F1, p.519
1895. Buch v. Bostedo Package and Cash Carrier Company. "Supreme Court - Chambers - Beckman, J... Class VIII... 19 - Buch vs. Bostedo Package and Cash Carrier Company." New York Times, 23 Dec. 1895, p.12
1897. Briggs v. Callender, McAuslan & Troup Co. (RI) 653. "Complaint in action for injuries from fall of box from cash railway, charging location of terminus of railway as negligence, amended."
1897. Consolidated Store-Service Co. v. John W. Wilson et al. Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts, 20 Oct. 1897. No.788. For alleged infringement of two patents relating to cash-carrier or store-service apparatus. The cause was heard on a motion for preliminary injunction. Federal Reporter 83 F1, p.201
1897. Starr Cash Carrier Company v. Joseph Starr. "The Starr case in New London [Conn.]. There is a long legal tangle connected with the Starr Cash Carrier Company and Joseph Starr. The latter obtained a patent for a cash carrier system. To add to its practicability a Chicago patent was purchased by the company then formed. This latter patent, it is alleged, Mr. Starr has held, claiming it to be his own property." New York Times, 15 Jul. 1897, p.1
1897. Emma Harding. "FRANCES KIDDELL . I am assistant to William Roper, a draper, of the Bon Marche, Kilburn—between 6.30 and seven p.m. on May 7th, I served the prisoner with one yard of ribbon at 4 3/4d.—she tendered this 5s. piece—I folded it up in this bill, and sent it up in the cash ball on the cash railway to Miss Grey, our cashier." Proceedings of London's Central Criminal Court, 24 May 1897 and following
1898. Consolidated Store Fixture Company. "An answer to a suit for infringement on a cash carrier was filed in the United States court this morning, which practically denied the right of the Consolidated Store Fixture Company to maintain a suit against any person using the carrier, on the grounds that it was not a new or novel invention at the time the patent was granted. The answer was filed by Harris and Schumacker, of Sandusky, who were using a carrier which, the Consolidated Comapny claimed, was an infringement on its patents. It denied that .. Osgood .. was really the original inventor of the device." Sandusky Star, 18 Oct. 1898, p.1
1900. Bostedo Pneumatic Tube Company vs Harris-Emery. "Suit has been brought in the United States court by the Bostedo Pneumatic Tube Company of Chicago against the Harris-Emery company of this city [Des Moines, Ia.], for an injunction to restrain the defendant company from infringement upon a patent plaintiff has on a system of tubes used for a pneumatic cash carrier system. It is claimed that the system now in use in the Harris-Emery store is an infringement." Iowa State Bystander, 13 Jul. 1900, p.2
1901. William A. Briggs vs Callender, McAuslan & Troop Co. "Mr Briggs was an employee in the Boston Store as a salesman of stoves in the basement. A station of the overhead cash carrier system was above the place where he worked. One of the metal cash carriers, failing to stop when it reached its terminal station, struck and dislodged another box which was stationary on the track so that the latter box dropped off the track andstruck Briggs with great force upon the head between the eyes, so .. that he became totally blind." Manufacturers and Farmers Journal, 25 Nov. 1901, p.5
1904. Leitner Bros., Corunna, Mich. "Leitner Bros., dry goods merchants of this city, have made a settlement with Miss Maud Teal .. for the loss of her left arm, which she sustained last February through an injury received on the cash carrier system in Leitner Bros.' store two and a half years ago. Messrs. Leitner paid Miss Teal the sum of $500 cash." Corunna Journal, 14 July 1904
1904. Lamson Pneumatic Tube Co v. Phillips. The defendant's contract of employment stated that, on ceasing to work for the plaintiffs, he would not engage in a similar business, for a period of five years, anywhere in the Eastern hemisphere. It was felt that such a restriction was reasonable, bearing in mind the plaintiffs' business.
1906. Lamson Store Service Co Ltd v. Russell Wilkins & Sons Ltd. 4 CLR 672. There was an agreement for the lease or hire, for ten years, of a cash railway with fourteen stations. Wilkins was to pay in advance £6/10/00 per annum per station. Clause 8 of the agreement provided that in the case of bankruptcy, insolvency or otherwise the whole rent for the remainder of the term was due and the system could be removed. During the first year of the agreement, Wilkins Co. was ordered to be wound up. There was disagreement about whether it was a penalty against which equity would grant relief. (Presumably the Russell Wilkins of Brisbane)
1906. Hamilton Brass Manufacturing Co. v. Barr Cash and Package Carrier Co., 38 S.C.R. 216 (Supreme Court of Canada). By agreement between them the Hamilton Brass Mfg. Co. was appointed agent of the Barr Cash Co. for sale and lease of its carriers in Canada at a price named for manufacture; net profits to be equally divided and quarterly returns to be furnished, either party having liberty to annul the contract for non-fulfillment of conditions. The agreement was in force for three years when the Barr Co. sued for an account, alleging failure to make proper returns and payments.
1907. Barr Cash & Package Carrier Co. v. Brooks-Ozan Mercantile Co. 101 S.W.408 (Ark., 1907) The apellant sued the appellee on a written contract whereby it was agreed that appellant should erect for appellee a system of five stations of cash and package carriers. The contract provides that .. the appellant should lease to the appellee for five years.
1907. Five and Ten Cent Store, Flushing, N.Y. "Mrs. Anna Aldsworth, of Flushing, was awarded $90 last week because she was struck in the forehead by a cash carrier in the Five and Ten Cent store at Flushing." Suffolk County News, 19 Apr. 1907, p.1
1908. British Cash and Parcel Conveyors Ltd. v. Lamson Store Service Co. Ltd.. 1 KB 1006. This is a famous case for the definitions of maintenance and champerty. "Maintenance .. is directed against wanton and officious intermeddling with the disputes of others in which the defendant has no interest whatever, and where the assistance he renders to the one or the other party is without justification or excuse." Champerty is an aggravated form of maintenance, in which the maintainer receives something of value for the assistance given. Concerned three businesses - Reese & Gwillim of Cardiff, Whiteman of Derby and Harper Bros of Balham - where BCPC and Lamson were competing for business.
1908. "Scream after scream rang through the dry goods store of H.A.Baker & Co., 1,720 Broadway, Williamsburg, at 5:30 o'clock yeaterday afternoon... The few who ran in the direction of the screams found Kate Gorham, the young cashier of the store, lying in a heap in her booth. The girl's head had been scalped almost bare by a flying wire carriage in which goods are sent along to the wrapping room on overhead wires. One or two girls who had seen the accident said that Miss Gorham sttod up to speak to a friend just as thecarriage came into the booth." New York Times, 16 May 1908.
"In order that Miss Catharine Gorman, cashier in a Brooklyn department store, may come out of the hospital with a full head of hair, more than 100 department store girls each will sacrifice from a quarter to one inch of scalp with long locks attached." Youngstown Vindicator, 2 June 1908, p.1
1909. Lamson Cash R. Co. v. Godehard. 8 C CA 265, 19 US App. 360, 59 Fed. 776. US Supreme Court Reports, p.1145
1913. "Struck on the left temple by a little car in the cash carrier system in his store, Louis Craine, a Hollidaysburg merchant, was rendered unconscious. Doctors said he had a narrow escape from death." Pittsburgh Press, 26 Sep. 1913, p.7
1914. The Lamson Store Service Co., Ltd., Collins street [Melbourne, Australia], were charged with having employed R. Weigall at a lower rate of wages than that provided by the Wages Board. Ararat Advertiser, 2 May 1914, p.2
1923. Shirley v. O'Brien & Co. "Council for Miss Fay Shirley, vaudeville actress .. settled her $15,000 damage suit against P.C.O'Brien & Co. for $1,000. Miss Shirley alleged she was struck on the nose by the metal basket of a change carrier in the dry goods store of the O'Brien company, Jersey City, last July." New York Times, 27 Mar. 1923, p.23
1927. "Herbert Rafferty, sales manager, sued the Lamson Store Service Company, Ltd., an English firm with Australian and New Zealand branches, claiming £396/14/6, a balance of commission alleged to be due on orders placed for certain installations of pneumatic tube and dictagraph appliances in business houses in New Zealand. It was stated that the company's business in New Zealand was conducted under the name of the Lamson Despatch Company, Ltd., but that the accounts were handled in Sydney." Sydney Morning Herald, 20 Dec. 1927, p.8
1933. Electrical Equipment Co. v. Frederick J. Cook. "Plaintiff in error operated a store in which it sold electrical equipment, radios, and automobile supplies. To expedite its business it had cash carriers running from various points in its store to a central cashier's cage. The cashier's cage was near the ceiling and was built up from the floor. The cash carriers traveled on wires at an angle of about forty-five degrees, the lower end being about six feet and the upper end about eleven feet from the floor. Defendant in error was employed to redecorate and paint the store of plaintiff in error and while in the discharge of this employment he was struck on the head by one of these cash carriers as it was operated by one of the clerks in the store." Supreme Court of Florida, Div. A, 19 Dec. 1933
1938. J.C. Penny Co. v. Forrest. Supreme Court of Oklahoma. On the afternoon of the 12th day of December, 1934, the plaintiff..while a customer in the defendant's store, suffered an accidental injury when a mechanical carrier fell from the overhead system for the carriage used in the store... The system was the approved system used by thousands of stores all over the United States.
2003. The news service icSolihull on 28 November 2003 recounted how a cashier had trapped her hand in the pneumatic tube apparatus at the Tesco store in Castle Bromwich. She was rescued by firefighters from Sheldon and suffered only bruising and scratches.
2007. Sainsbury's, Croydon . "A thief stole more than 90,000 pounds after intercepting bundles of cash sent in the pneumatic tube systems of supermarkets. Peter Blackham, 26, is thought to have gained entry to the roof space of several stores by locking himself into a disabled toilet and removing ceiling tiles. He then disconnected the high-speed air tubes - used to transport money from the tills to the safe - and helped himself to the cash. Blackham, from Petts Wood, Kent, was arrested in May last year when he was disturbed committing a burglary at Sainsbury’s in Croydon. After realising large amounts of cash were going missing from the internal handling system, the supermarket had launched an internal investigation and installed motion sensors in the roof." Daily Telegraph, 15 June 2007
2013. Tescos, Parrs Wood, Manchester. "A 21-year old supermarket manager was left red-faced... The duty manager was stuck for 30 minutes with his right-hand in the pneumatic tube next to a till in Tesco at Parrs Wood. Fire crews from Stockport, Withington and a specialist rescue team from Ashton were called to the incident." Manchester Evening News, 17 Apr. 2013, p.4
? Anderson v. Mc Carthy Dry Goods Co. 49 Wash 398. An action to recover damages caused by the falling of a basket from an overhead carrier system in the defendant's store.
? Decisions of the Commissioner of Patents (United States), date unknown, p.309. "If, however, it could be conceded that Fordyce's experiment in 1901 constituted a reduction to practice, the testimony, in my opinion, shows that the invention was concealed in the shops of the Bostedo Pneumatic Tube Company for such a period of time as would subordinate his rights to those of Stoetzel, who installed and successfully operated several systems embodying this invention prior to the date upon which Fordyce filed his application."
? Johnson v. Lamson Co. "An example of such a transaction was presented in Johnson v. Lamson Co., a case involving a lease. The object of the lease, a cash carrier system, was installed pursuant to a contract between a Massachusetts corporation and a Virginia corporation in a store of the latter located in the city of Roanoke. Virginia Law Review, vol. 39, no. 6, Oct. 1953, p.846