|
Not to be confused with the Columbia Wagon
Co. (later
Columbia Body Corp.) of Columbia, Pennsylvania a much older firm that
offered a
similar product line during the teens and twenties. One easy way to
determine
if it’s a Detroit-built Columbia is to locate the small burnished
Columbia
script found underneath the lower front seat cushion (pictured to the
right).
The Detroit firm also used the phrase 'Better Bodies' in their
advertising, the
Pennsylvania firm did not. They also constructed a
single boat-tail speedster body for a 1927 Duesenberg Model X chassis -
story follows the main writeup in Appendix 1.
Our subject, the Columbia Body Co. of
Detroit, Michigan, was
famous for their low-budget commercial bodies designed for the Model T
Ford.
They offered a full line of products ranging from enclosed truck cabs,
delivery
truck bodies and stake racks to ambulance and hearses. They also
offered
speedsters and 'slip-over' parcel delivery bodies for the Model T
roadster, the
latter being 200 lb. boxes that fit behind the tonneau compartment
residing
where the turtle deck formerly resided.
A sister firm, the Selden Mfg. Co., offered
sturdy frame
extensions for the Model T and TT which were sold under the 'Samson',
'SpringFord'
and 'Columbia' trade names. Columbia also offered a line of 'Forma-a'
commercial bodies specifically designed for use with Selden Mfg.'s
Samson
chassis extensions.
(Although Selden's 'Form-a' bodies were
suspiciously similar
to in name and substance to those offered by the more popular Smith's
Form-A-Truck, no legal action is recorded.)
In the 1920s Columbia served as the metro
Detroit
distributor for H.H. Babcock bodies and by 1930 was gone, its owners
having
entered the burgeoning asbestos tile and wallboard manufacturing
business,
which remained lucrative into the 1950s.
The Columbia Buggy Co., Selden Mfg. Co.,
Columbia Body Co. and
Columbia Body Corp. were all founded by Joseph B. Pospeshil (b. Nov.
1871 in
Mich. d. 1950) who was closely assisted by his wife Emilie (McTaggart,
b.1857
in Canada – d.1958). Emilie served as Columbia's president for many
years and
to my knowledge was the only woman to head a major American
body-building firm.
Joseph B. Pospeshil was born in November
1871 to Jacob B.
and Charee Pospeshil, two Bohemian/ Czech/Austrian immigrants. Siblings
included: Frank (b.1870); Mary (b.1873) Henry (b.1874); Amiel (b.1879)
and
Josephine (b. 1881) Pospeshil.
The 1888-1889 Detroit Directories list
Joseph Pospeshil as a
'painter' at the Detroit Buggy Works (40 Randolph), his home address,
617 St.
Antoine, Detroit. He shared his residence with a Frank J. Pospeshil,
who worked
as a blacksmith at Sievers & Erdman (sw cor. of Brush &
Woodbridge).
Also at the same address were Jacob B. and Mary Pospeshil – Mary was
listed as
a grocer with stores located at 617 St Antoine and 204 Farnsworth.
The 1890 Detroit Directory lists Joseph
Pospeshil as a
'carriage painter' at 'C. Rohde' (40 Randolph), his home address, 617
St.
Antoine, Detroit. (Charles Rohde's well-known carriage and works were
located
at 423-427 Gratiot and 312 Russell.) He shared his residence with a
Frank J.
Pospeshil, who continued to work as a blacksmith at Sievers &
Erdman (sw
cor. of Brush & Woodbridge). Also at the same address were Jacob B.
(engineer) and Mrs. Mary Pospeshil – who continued to be listed as a
grocer with
a store located at 617 St Antoine only.
The 1893 Detroit Directory lists Joseph
Pospeshil as a 'grocer'
at Pospeshil & Sons (Jacob, Henry & Joseph, grocers, 995 Wabash
av.),
his home address being the same, 995 Wabash av. Also listed at the same
address
were his partners Jacob & Henry. Listed at separate addresses where
Frank
J. Pospeshil (h. 267 Rowena), who continued to work as a blacksmith,
and Louis
(bds. 1215 Russell), whose profession was cigar maker.
The 1895 Detroit Directory lists Joseph
Pospeshil as a 'grocer'
at Pospeshil & Sons (Jacob, Henry & Joseph, grocers, 995 Wabash
av.),
his home address being the same, 995 Wabash av. Also listed at the same
address
were his partners Jacob & Henry and for the first time a Jacob B.
Pospeshil
(engineer). At separate addresses where
Frank J. Pospeshil (h. 1005 Grand River), who now worked as an 'oiler'.
The 1896 Detroit Directory lists Joseph B.
Pospeshil as a
'wagonmaker' located at 25 Milwaukee ave. (bds. same). The remainder of
his
family remained at 995 Wabash where they continued to operate the
family's
grocery store. The directory lists a Joseph Pospeshil at 995 Wabash and
lists a
one new family member, Emil Pospeshil (apprentice). It also lists a
Francis J.
Pospeshil (sailor) who lived at a separate address, 78 Hecla av.
The 1897 Detroit Directory lists Joseph B.
Pospeshil as a
'wagonmaker' located at 25 Milwaukee ave. (bds. same). The remainder of
his
family remained at 995 Wabash where they continued to operate the
family's
grocery store. The directory continues to list Joseph Pospeshil and
Emil J.
Pospeshil (mach.) at 995 Wabash and lists another new family member,
Josephine
Pospeshil (clerk) at the same address. It also lists a Francis J.
Pospeshil
(engineer) who continued to live at 78 Hecla av.
The 1900 US Census lists Jacob's occupation
as 'marine
engineer' a profession shared by his son Frank. Joseph's occupation is
listed
as 'carriage manufacturer', Henry's listing says 'butcher'.
The 1904-1905 Detroit Directories list
Joseph B. Pospeshil
as manager of the Anderson Carriage Co., (repository, 81-83 Jefferson;
factory
ne cor. Riopelle & Clay) h. 995 Wabash. At that time Anderson was
one of
Detroit's largest carriage and early automobile body manufacturers.
The 1906 Detroit Directory lists Joseph B.
Pospeshil as
superintendent of E. Chope & Son., (Wagon & Truck mfrs.)
located at
106-110 Randolph (h. 1125 Hancock av. W.). Also listed is Henry
Pospeshil,
(grocer) at 995 Wabash and Frank J. Pospeshil (engineer) h. 1021
Wabash, Jacob
B. Pospeshil (engineer) and Elizabeth, widow of Louis Pospeshil (h. 78
Baltimore av. E.).
Joseph B. Pospeshil held a number of US
patents, the first
of which was an improvement to a wagon box:
"Wagon-box - US Pat. No. 893937 - Filed
Apr
2, 1906 -
Issued Jul 21, 1908 to Joseph B. Pospeshil"
The 1909 Detroit Directory lists Joseph B.
Pospeshil as
owner of the Columbia Buggy Co., 51 Woodward av. (h. 1292 McKinley).
Also
listed is Henry Pospeshil, (grocer) at 995 Wabash and Frank J.
Pospeshil
(engineer) h. 1021 Wabash.
The 1910 US Census lists Joseph's occupation
as 'store' selling 'retail carriage' goods.
The 1911-1914 Detroit Directories list
Joseph B. Pospeshil
as proprietor of the Columbia Buggy Co., 51 Woodward av. (h. 61
Selden). The firm's listing follows:
"Columbia Buggy Co. (Joseph B. Pospeshil),
High Grade
and Medium Prices Vehicles, Business wagons and Harness, Auto Robes and
Shawls.
State Agts. for Martin Motor Cars, 51 Woodward Ave., Tel Main 3194; New
Sales
Room and Garage, 21-23 Selden av., Tel Grand 136."
The firm's new sales room was located next
door to the
Michigan State Automobile School, 11-13-15-17 Selden Ave.,
cor. Woodward,
a firm which was a frequent advertiser in Popular Mechanics and other
similar
periodicals.
The Garage Notes column of the December 30,
1914 of The
Horseless Age announced an pending expansion of the Buggy Co.:
"Detroit, Mich. - Joseph Pospeshil, of the
Columbia
Buggy Co., 10 Selden avenue, is having plans prepared for the
construction of a
two-story brick garage."
The 1915-1916 Directories list Joseph B.
Pospeshil as
proprietor of the Columbia Buggy Co., and the Columbia Body Co., (h. 61
Selden). Both directories list Columbia Buggy as before, the new firm
is listed
as follows:
"Columbia Body Co., (commercial auto
bodies), 21-27
Selden av."
The firm also advertised a 'Speedster' body
in the 'Ford
Specialties Section' of the February 1915 issue of MoToR as follows:
"The Columbia Body Company of Detroit,
21-23
Selden
Ave., Detroit, Mich., are making the Columbia Speedster - a body
designed
specially for the Model T Ford chassis. The framework is of seasoned
hardwood
and cowl, dash, and bucket seats of pressed steel with rolled wire
edges are
featured.
"Upholstery is removable. The oval fuel
tank
has a
capacity of 18 gallons, the oil tank holds 5 gallons and fenders and
tool box
are included. Choice of several color furnishings is given, red being
the stock
color."
The Columbia Body Co. was listed as a
supplier of ambulance bodies
in a 1915 issue of Modern Hospital and was also included in the 1915
edition of
Chilton's Automobile Trade Directory:
"Columbia. Body Co., 21-23 Selden
Ave., Detroit.
Mich. (Columbia Speedster) for Fords."
The 1916 Detroit Directory had an expanded
listing for the
Body Co.:
"Columbia Body Co. (Joseph B. Pospeshil
Prop), Delivery
Bodies for Automobiles, Funeral Cars and Ambulances. Specializing on
High-Grade
Delivery Bodies for Fords. 21 Selden av., Tels Grand 136 and 3334."
Which was nearly identical to the Buggy Co.
entry:
"Columbia Buggy Co. (Joseph B. Pospeshil
Prop),
Delivery Bodies for Automobiles, Funeral Cars and Ambulances High Grade
and
Medium Priced Buggies, Delivery Wagons and Harness, Auto Robes and
Shawls. 21
Selden av., Tels Grand 136 and 3334."
Columbia's delivery bodies were one of the
more popular
Model T delivery van bodies and were available with (swell-side
vestibule body)
or without (open-front panel body) a closed cab. Columbia also
manufactured
light express bodies with a choice of open or closed cabs. Light
express bodies
were a predecessor to today's pick-up trucks. Express bodies were
offered with
and without roofs and could be fitted with screen or canvas sides,
depending on
the application. They were also built in different length and were
often used
in conjunction with aftermarket frame extension/truck conversion kits
offered
by dozens of manufacturers through the 1930s. Popular brands were the
Smith
Form-A-Truck, Union-Ford, Longford, Perfect Car (Convertible Equipment
Co.),etc.
Pospeshil decided to get in on the frame
extension business
and in 1915 began placing small display ads for the "Columbia Slip-On
Frame for Fords" in the trades that catered to Ford car and truck
owners.
Pospeshil had received a patent for his own
heavy-duty
Model-T frame extension, "Attachment for automobiles, US Pat. No.
1200020
- Filed Mar 31, 1916 - Issued Oct 3, 1916," which was subsequently
judged to be in interference with a similar patent filed by Nels L.
Olson,
"Spring Suspension, US Pat. No. 1380408 - Filed Apr 14, 1916 - Issued
Jun
7, 1921 to Nels L. Olson."
Pospeshil filed an application in
interference (application
which seems to be in conflict with another, not yet awarded) on
September 5,
1916, which was related to the patent originally filed on March 31,
1916. Olson
filed his application April 14, 1916. The invention in interference
related to
means by which an automobile may be converted into a truck, and was
limited to
the following issue:
"The combination with a semi-floating axle
structure
Including a casing, an axle journaled therein having a projecting end,
and a
wheel fixed to said projecting end, of means for converting It Into a
three-quarter floating axle structure comprising a flange secured to
the inner
side of the wheel and sur rounding the end of the casing and bearings
Interposed between said flange and said end of the casing."
Based on an action by Olson, whose patent
application
preceded Pospeshil's by two weeks, the patent judge originally revoked
Pospeshil's, but on a 1921 appeal, the patent committee reversed the
previous
decision on a technicality, stating that Olson had not done due
diligence in
protecting his patent, and reinstated Pospeshil's while also approving
Olson's,
essentially giving both inventors patent rights. FYI Olson was a
prolific
inventor, his truck equipment being sold under the 'Olson Equipments"
moniker by the Swedish Crucible Steel Co. of Detroit.
Pospeshil's frame extension was marketed
separately from his
bodies under the Selden Mfg. Co. moniker, and the frame extension was
introduced to the trade in the January 11, 1917 issue of Motor Age:
"SELDEN HAS FORD UNIT
"Detroit, Jan. 8 — After 18 months of
exhaustive
experiments, the Selden Mfg. Co. has begun an active,
countrywide
campaign to introduce the Samson load carrying unit. Its function is to
relieve
the Ford rear axle of all weight from load when the chassis is
converted into a
light truck, and to supply a powerful, rigid brace to the Ford spring
hangers
and wheels. This is accomplished by two strong brackets with their
auxiliary
springs, and two special ball bearings which assemble on the axle
housing."
Much the same article appeared in the
January 11, 1917 issue
of Automotive Industries:
"Selden Brings Out Samson Load Carrying
Unit
"Detroit, Jan. 8 — After 18 months of
exhaustive
experiments, the Selden Mfg. Co., has begun an active
countrywide
campaign to introduce the Samson load carrying unit. Its function is to
relieve
the Ford rear axle of all weight from load when the chassis is
converted into a
light truck, and to supply a powerful, rigid brace to the Ford springer
hangers
and wheels. This is accomplished by two strong brackets, with their
auxiliary
springs, and two special ball bearings which assemble on the axle
housing."
The April 11, 1917 issue of Motor Age
included more information on the Samson unit:
"SAMSON UNIT FOR FORDS
"An attachment which permits the addition
of
two full
elliptic springs to the regular Ford transverse spring - thus greatly
increasing the load capacity of the chassis. Heavier wheels with
Hess-Bright
bearings are provided thus the whole rear running gear is strengthened.
Attachment complete with 31 x 1/4 non skid tires and inner tubes. $115.
Selden
Mfg. Co., Detroit."
The Ford Section of the May, 1917 Automobile
Trade Journal
included the following:
"The Selden Ford Truck Extension
"An extension for the regular Ford truck
frame is being
marketed by the Selden Mfg. Co. of Detroit, the details of which are
given as
follows. Heavy 4 in. channel iron frame which telescopes the Ford frame
and
carries the entire load, relieving the frame. On this frame are riveted
four
brackets for the springs; two large powerful springs are used to carry
the load.
Two brackets are also furnished which fit over the Ford truck rear axle
housing
and upon which the extension springs rest. This attachment can be made
without
drilling holes in any part of the Ford frame or altering the Ford
chassis in
any way. This will enable the use of a Form-a -ruck body on a regular
Form-a-chassis
with overhang. Bodies up to 10 ft. may be used."
The Ford Accessories Section of the
November, 1917 issue of
Automobile Trade Journal included the following description of the
Samson load-carrying unit:
"Samson Load-Carrying Unit
"The Samson complete unit is designed to
enable the
Ford car to be used as a serviceable truck or delivery wagon. It is
made by the
Selden Mfg. Co., 23-29 Selden Ave., Detroit, Mich. In assembling the
unit,
extra brackets are bolted to the Ford spring hanger and the brake
housing.
These brackets support extra springs that assist in sustaining the
added
weight. The springs are bolted to the truck or delivery body by heavy
hangers.
The purpose of the attachment is to distribute the weight directly over
the wheels
and to prevent swaying and bumping of the truck body when traveling
over uneven
roads. The unit includes special heavy duty wheels that are designed to
lessen
the strain on the axle, due to heavier loads, by shifting it to the
axle
housing. This is accomplished by bolting a self-lubricating ball
bearing to the
wheel inside the brake drum. The inner race of this bearing takes the
end of
the axle housing that extends into the brake drum so as to again
transfer the
load from the axle housing direct to the wheels. The result is said to
be
practically a full-floating axle. The wheels supplied are of sturdy
construction, 30 x 3 ½ in., with demountable rims and are supplied
complete
with brace wrench, standard 31 x 4-in. tires of nonskid design and
tubes. The price
of the unit, including the brackets, springs, hangers, bearings, wheels
and
tires is $115. The unit is shipped complete, ready to assemble, with
all
necessary nuts and bolts. Extra heavy-duty square-spoked truck wheels
are
supplied for $10 additional. The various parts of the complete unit are
supplied at proportionate prices."
1917 issue of The Fordowner:
"The Columbia Body company, 61 Selden
avenue,
Detroit, Mich., are marketing the Columbia patented bracket and spring
assembly. This assembly consists of one pair of axle brackets, on pair
of
special alloy springs, and one pair of body brackets, requiring no
changing of
Ford parts. This assembly is sold in three forms, as follows: 1000-lb.
spring
assembly. $25.00; 1500-lb."
1918 Columbia commercial bodies available
for converted Ford
Model T chassis included a Light Weight Stake Body, an ambulance body,
a
funeral car body, and a number of delivery vans ranging from compact
designs
for parcel delivery up to huge furniture and moving van bodies, all
available
with a choice of open or closed (vestibule) cabs.
March 1918 Vehicle Monthly:
"The Selden Line of Ford Converters
"The Selden Manufacturing Company,
Detroit,
Michigan,
in connection with the line of varied Ford units which they manufacture
for the
trade, are also putting on the market an extension for the new Ford
truck known
as the Columbia extension. This extension is extra well-built
throughout and
the frame is 4 inch pressed steel, the same as used in all truck
extensions
with the springs attached to the frame. The spring brackets set over
the Ford
rear axle housing and spring perch requires no drilling and is easily
assembled. It makes a real proposition for body builders and
body dealers
to put long bodies on the Ford truck without changing
the sub-frames.
"The Selden Manufacturing Company claim to
be the first
builders of truck units for the Ford car, and for the last
three
years have been building a complete line, consisting of
the Samson unit, SpringFord unit,
Selden extension and now
the new Columbia extension.
"Their general offices are in Detroit,
Mich., with a
branch at 1019-1021 Central Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio.
"The officers of the company are J. B.
Pospeshil,
president; A. M. Pospeshil, treasurer; A. Immel. vice-president and
general
manager; Chas. E. Johnston, secretary and assistant to president; J. E.
Flynn,
sales manager, and Earl Whitcomb, factory superintendent."
April 18, 1918 issue of Automotive
Industries:
"Adapts Ford Truck to Long Body
"The Selden Manufacturing
Co. of Detroit, is building a new extension for the Ford
1-ton
truck. This extension, known as the Columbia, is built to take care of
long
bodies and makes the frame long enough to put on a 9-ft. body behind
the seat.
The frame is of solid pressed steel, which is assembled on the Ford
truck
without any changes being made on the chassis other than those required
by the
direct assembly of the unit. On this frame are a set of springs and
patented
brackets, which fit on the Ford rear axle housing flange and encase the
Ford
spring perch. These brackets can be put on by any ordinary mechanic
without
drilling any holes or disassembling the Ford wheels. The side springs
are high
carbon steel and are assembled on the Ford frame to take care of the
light
load. By this arrangement the first 1000 lb. rests on the auxiliary
spring and
the remaining 1500 lb. is taken up by the Ford spring. The Ford spring
is built
strong enough and is able to take care of 4000 lb. The extension is
suitable
for grocers and other tradesmen where a roomy truck is wanted. The
illustration
herewith shows a Ford truck with the attachment assembled on it. The
length of
the frame over all is 12 ft. 8 in. This frame is strong enough to take
care of
all types of Form-a-truck bodies and is also long enough without
changing any
of the sub sills. The illustrations below show the extension and the
appearance
of the lengthened truck."
The Columbia Body Sales Co. of Cleveland,
Ohio changed its
name to the Columbia Body Co. on January 28, 1918.
June 20, 1918 issue of Motor Age:
"COLUMBIA OFFERS NEW BODY
"Detroit, June 14 - The Columbia Body Co.
has designed
a new hearse and casket combination car which it calls Liberty. By
(using) the
company's chassis lengthener in conjunction with its patented Sampson
load-carrying unit, the large body can be placed on a Ford chassis,
making the
wheelbase 130 in. The body measures 90 in. from the driver's seat and
is 42 in.
wide. The car is equipped with crown fenders, splash guards, linoleum
covered
running boards, demountable rim wheels with over-size 31 ¼" non-skid
tires
and one extra rim. The price is $1,250."
Columbia also built small parcel delivery
boxes that
could be mounted
on the rear of Ford Model T roadsters without having to remove the
roadster
body. Columbia offered these 200 lb. bodies sized to fit any automobile
chassis.
Columbia built their business around
supplying alternative
automotive bodies for the Model T as well as their line of commercial
bodies.
In Columbia's 1918 catalog, they offered a Laundelet Limousine,
Combination
Merchandise and Passenger Wagon as well as various Taxicab bodies
outfitted for
specific markets - Detroit and New York double-tariff bodies must have
been big
sellers as they were offered in subsequent catalogs.
With the introduction of Ford's new Model T
One-Ton chassis
in 1918, commercial body builders like Columbia finally had a standard
set of
dimensions to work with and they soon started to offer bodies designed
specifically for the new Ford chassis. Up until 1918 many of their
bodies were
built for various truck conversion kits, whose size and quality varied
from one
manufacturer to the other.
Columbia took great pride in being able to
convert obsolete
horse-drawn equipment into modern motor trucks using converted Ford
Model T as
a chassis.
The Ford Section of the September 1918 issue
of Automobile
Trade Journal:
"The Selden Ford Truck Extension
"An extension for the regular Ford truck
frame is being
marketed by the Selden Mfg. Co., of Detroit, the details of which are
given as
follows: Heavy 4-in. channel iron frame, which telescopes the Ford
frame and
carries the entire load, relieving the frame. On this frame are riveted
four
brackets for the springs; two large, powerful springs are used to carry
the
load. Two brackets are also furnished , which fit over the Ford truck
rear axle
housing and upon which the extension springs rest. This attachment can
be mad e
without drilling holes in any part of the Ford frame, or altering the
Ford
chassis in any way. This will enable the use of a Form-a truck body on
a
regular Form-a chassis with overhang, Bodies up to 10 ft. may be used."
Even though Ford was offering the Model TT
One-Ton chassis,
some operators were looking for more weight carrying ability. Columbia
met the
need in 1920 with their new "slip-on frame with side springs and
extension". As the name implies, the conversion slipped over an
existing
Model T One-Ton chassis and could now handle up to 2 tons. Columbia
manufactured a number of larger capacity freight bodies to match the
higher
capacity of the new frame conversion kit. One such body was the
truss
side open express body that included flared rails to help with loading.
1919 Annual Report of the Department of
Labor of the State
of Michigan lists 24 employees, product: auto bodies.
The 1920 US Census lists Pospeshil as
proprietor of 'Auto
Body Co.', his wife, is listed as assistant manager of 'Auto Body Co.'
1920 prices: "Columbia Body Co" closed body
for Ford $68.00
1920 Annual Report of the Department of
Labor of the State of Michigan lists 24 employees, product: truck
bodies.
Selden Manufacturing's listing in the 1920
Chilton's
Directory follows:
"Selden Mfg. Co., 27 Selden Ave., Detroit,
Mich. 'Samson'
& 'Columbia' Slip on frame & side springs."
In some publications 41-61 Selden av. is
given as Selden
Mfg.'s address. Even after the introduction of the Model TT chassis,
Columbia
continued to offer similar bodies for both the Ford Model T and the new
1-ton
Ford Model TT. Bodies for stock Model T's were a little lighter and
shorter
than bodies designed for the TT, but followed the same designs and
construction
methods.
1921 Automobile Trade Directory:
"Columbia Body Co., 45 Selden
Ave., Detroit, Mich."
The April 21, 1921 issue of Iron Age,
announced the April
18, 1921 formation of the Columbia Body Corp.:
"The Columbia Body
Corporation, Detroit, has been
Incorporated with a capital of $500,000 by August Qunnel, Joseph B.
Pospeshil
and James H. McTaggart, 45 Selden Avenue, to manufacture
automobile
bodies."
The May 1921 issue of the Automotive
Manufacturer provided
the same info:
"Columbia Body Corporation Detroit has
been
incorporated with a capital of $500,000 by August Qunnel, Joseph B.
Pospeshil
and James M. McTaggart, 45 Selden avenue, to manufacture automobile
bodies."
James H. McTaggart (b. Jun. 2, 1896 –d. Apr.
13, 1984), was the
stepson of James B. Pospeshil. He was the biological son of Pospeshil's
wife
Emelie, who had previously been married to Dr. James McTaggart.
Pospeshil
treated him as his own, and McTaggart played an important role in all
of his mother
and stepfather's businesses.
The May 1921 issue of the Motor Truck:
"BUYS FORD CITY FACTORY
"The Selden Manufacturing Co., Detroit,
Mich., which
manufactures truck bodies, demountable wheels, etc., has purchased a
large new
factory at Ford City, a Detroit suburb where it is already in
production. The
company is now fully prepared to turn out frames and springs in large
quantities."
The 'Industrial Notes' column of the August
25, 1921 issue
of Automotive Industries reported that the capitalization was only
$200,000:
"Columbia Body Corp., Detroit, has
acquired
the
American Chemical Co.'s plant and is moving. The company had been given
permission to sell $200,000 in stock."
The American Chemical Co. plant was located
in Ford City, an
early industrial village named after John Baptiste Ford in 1902, and
located
adjacent to the Detroit suburb of Wyandotte, with whom it merged in
1922.
1922 Motor Vehicle Yearbooks lists the firm
under "Body
Manufacturers" in Detroit, Michigan as follows:
"Columbia Body Co., Wh, (Pas- Com), (W-M)
Joseph B.
Pospeshil, prop."
Photographer Sam Sturgis' "Old Ann Arbor
Town"
(pub. 1967) pictures 2 Columbia Body-built Model T delivery trucks
(Kleis
Beverage Co. / Schumann-Hotzel Bakery) on pp128.
Advertisements in the Funeral trades offered
Columbia 4-column
combination hearse and ambulance bodies. Called the 'New York
Ambulance' it included
beveled plate glass windows, a folding rear step and Spanish grained
leatherette upholstery. It is not clear if Columbia manufactured the
body
advertised, or was simply re-branding funeral coaches and ambulances
built by
Babcock, for which they were the metro Detroit authorized
distributor.
1920-1922 advertisements in the Automobile
Trade Journal for
the H.H. Babcock Co. of Watertown, New York, listed Columbia Body Co.,
and
Columbia Body Corp., Detroit, as authorized distributors of "Babcock
Enclosed Cabs, "Babcock Bodies for Light Delivery Trucks" and
"Babcock Bodies for Heavy Duty Trucks."
The decision by Pospeshil to expand his
operations in 1921
was ill-timed as the Ford Motor Company had just reduced the price of
their
Model TT 1-ton truck from $660 (1930) to $360 (1931), making it cheaper
to buy
a new one rather than convert an existing Model T using an aftermarket
frame/axle/suspension
kit.
Model TT prices for a standard wheelbase
cowl & chassis
(did not include a cab or body) were as follows; 1917-1918, $600; 1919,
$550;
1920, $660; 1921, $360; 1922, $390; 1923, $380; 1924, $370; 1925, $365;
1926,
$325.
In 1924 Ford Motor Co. put a few more nails
in the coffin of
the third-party body builders when they began to offer factory
coachwork for
the Model TT. By that time Columbia was getting the bulk of their
bodies from
larger manufacturers such as H.H. Babcock, and were only doing small
numbers of
custom-built bodies, when Babcock's standard catalog offerings wouldn't
suffice.
The owner of the green truck (1923 Model
TT Green
Columbia Cab Truck) seen to the right states:
"About all I know about the truck is it
started life as a
furniture delivery truck in Iowa. The Logo was painted on the doors.
The cab is
a Columbia Vestibule cab. There is a picture of one in the "Ford Trucks
Since 1905" book by James Wagner. That is the only picture I've found.
The
original color was green. The interior had been painted later with
battle ship
gray (porch and deck enamel). It is Red Oak with steel side panels."
The 1925 Detroit Directory lists Jos. B.
Pospeshil as
'manager' of the Columbia Body Co., h. 1600 Seward. The firm's listing
has
Amelia M. Pospeshil, Joseph's wife, listed as owner of Columbia Body
Co., (auto
body mfrs.) with a business address of 49 Selden, which is one of the
buildings
formerly utilized by the firm prior to the stillborn expansion of late
1921,
early 1922.
The 1927 Detroit directory listing follows:
"Columbia Body Co. (Jos. B. & Amelia
M.
Pospeshil),
49 Selden."
The 1928 Detroit directory listing follows:
"Columbia Body Co. (Mrs. Amelia M.
Pospeshil) 51-57
Selden av.
"Mrs. Amelia M. Pospeshil (pres. Columbia
Body Co.) r.
1600 Seward av., apt 406
"Jos. B. Pospeshil (Columbia Body Co.) r.
1600 Seward
ave., apt. 406."
The 1930 Detroit directory marked the first
appearance of
the Yankee Fiber Tile Co. another Pospeshil-owned business that sold
and
installed fiber tile wall board made from compressed
asbestos - a
product I'm familiar with, having rehabbed a number of properties which
utilized the moisture-proof (and potentially deadly) material in
kitchens and
bathrooms.
The 1930 Detroit directory listing follows:
"Columbia Body Co. (Mrs. Amelia M.
Pospeshil) 51-57
Selden av.
"Mrs. Amelia M. Pospeshil (pres. Columbia
Body Co.) r.
18218 Prairie av.
"Jos. B. Pospeshil (Amelia M., Yankee
Fibre
Tile Co.)
r. 18218 Prairie av.
"Yankee Fiber Tile Co., Jos. B. Pospeshil)
51-57 Selden
av."
The 1930 US Census lists Pospeshil as
proprietor of 'Tile
Co.', his wife is listed as treasurer of 'Tile Co.'
The 1931 Detroit Directory no longer lists
Columbia Body Co.,
only the Pospeshil's Yankee Fiber Tile Co at 51-57 Selden av. It also
lists James
H. McTaggart, Pospeshil's stepson, as Yankee Tile's salesman.
Yankee Fiber Tile Co. had a display at the
1933-34 'Century
of Progress International Exposition' in Chicago and remained in
business into
the 1950s. The also applied for a copyright on the following slogan:
"Yankee Fiber Tile Mfg. Co., Detroit –
'Modernize your
kitchen bathroom store office exteriors interiors with Economy fiber
tile.' Jan
14 1938 AA 263323 19605."
The Paper Trade Journal announced the firm's
reorganization
in 1937:
"The Yankee Fiber
Tile Manufacturing Company
has been organized with capital of $110,000, to take over and operate
company
of the same name, .with local plant at 51 Selden street for the
manufacture of
pressed fiber products."
The use of asbestos tile increased after the
Second World
War, and the Yankee Fiber Tile Mfg Co. moved
to more spacious facilities at 3222 E.
Jefferson Ave., and
in the late 1940s moved to 6036 Bellevue Ave. (also used 5035 Bellevue
Ave.),
Detroit. The firm became a subsidiary of the Chromalloy American
Corporation in
1952 and was reorganized as Color-Craft Products, Inc., which remained
under
the direction of James H. McTaggart (b. Jun. 2, 1896 –d. Apr. 13,
1984), James
B. Pospeshil's stepson.
The firm's founder, Joseph B. Pospeshil,
passed away in
1950, aged 79. His wife and business partner, Emilie McTaggart
Pospeshil,
passed away in 1957 at the age of 100!
A 1955 edition of Michigan Manufacturer and
Financial Record
announced the formation of the Henderson Tire Co. at the former Selden
Ave
plant of the Pospeshil's Body and Tile cos.:
"Henderson Tire Co., 45 Selden
Ave., Detroit;
William P. Henderson; deal in and manufacture auto parts, tools, glass
and
miscellaneous. $100,000."
During the 1950s and 1960s Color Craft
panels (which were
similar to Masonite, yet water-proof and available in a wide range of
colors)
were used as interior and exterior walls in Florida vacation homes.
Ironically a 1960 Color Craft Products
advertisement in
'School Arts' magazine stated:
"All COLOR CRAFT products carry a
non-toxic
seal for positive assurance that they contain no harmful Ingredients."
© 2015 Mark
Theobald for Coachbuilt.com
Appendix 1:
Several
styles of the Duesenberg Model X automobile were
constructed. Styles included dual cowl phaetons by Locke; sedans by
Locke; at least one sedan by Brunn; and a single boat-tail speedster,
which numerous sources have attributed to our subject, the Columbia
Body Co. While the exact
number of
finished Model X's is unknown, only 12 or 13 Model X chassis
were
constructed in all.
However recent accounts of the car, supplied by the car's owner, Dr. Peter
N. Heydon of Ann Arbor, Michigan, claim the body was built by McFarlan.
A slight discrepancy in chassis numbers also exists - Duesenberg historian Fred Roe lists the chassis as "Car D 96E, engine
#1954" while the
Auburn Cord Duesenberg Museum (where the car currently resides) lists the chassis as "D95 E, engine
#1954".
Originally painted blue, two period pictures
remain of the original car which are seen to the right, followed by how
the restored car looks today. The car and it relation to the Columbia Body
Co., are
mentioned in a couple of books and magazine articles.
The earliest article dates to1979 where
coachbuilding historian Michael Lamm states the body
was built by Columbia. In preparation for the article Lamm interviewed
ex-Cord
president Harold T. Ames, Duesenberg historians Strother MacMinn and
Frederick D. Roe;
Duesenberg restorer Randy Ema, and the Speedster’s owner at that time,
Allen Sandburg.
Lamm's article, 'The Mysterious Model X; 1927
Duesenberg Sport
Touring' appeared in Special Interest Autos No. 29, July-August 1979
issue (pp. 32-39) The page mentioning the origin of the body is
excerpted below:
pp6
"According to Duesenberg A and X historian
Allen Sandburg,
who owns the only Model X speedster built and who's probably the
world's
leading Model X authority, development work on the new car began early
in 1925. 'You might say that the Model X is the last true Duesenberg
designed wholly by
Duesenberg,' says Sanburg. 'The car Cord wanted for his entry into the
luxury
field would be much bigger than the A or X.'
"'By reviewing factory purchase records, I
conclude that
only 12 Model X cars were produced. The Duesenberg company had enough
parts to
assemble 14 Model X engines, and apparently two were used for testing.'
"As soon as the dozen Model Xs were sold
off, Cord,
Duesenberg and nearly everyone else forgot about them.
"Allen
Sandburg's chassis received its Speedster body from the Columbia Body
Co. Other
regular Duesenberg suppliers bodied the remaining cars.”
The next mention is on page 120 of Duesenberg historian Fred
Roe's 1982 book, 'Duesenberg; the Pursuit of Perfection' where he includes a picture of the Model X speedster,
identifying it as follows:
pp 120:
"Car D 96E, engine 1954. The most exciting
and influential Model X
Duesenberg body. This one of a kind speedster body built by the
Columbia Body Company is without question the prototype for the famous
line of Auburn Speedsters that were built from 1928 on. This picture
was taken inside the Duesenberg factory before the car was delivered to
it Chicago purchaser. There is no provision for a top on this car
and no windshield wipers were provided. Discovered in the fifties in a
sorry state with crude alteration, it is still undergoing the final
touches of an ambitious restoration."
The third mention of the Model X and Columbia Body Co. is on pages 79 and 81 of
Cord historian Griffith Borgeson's
"Errett Loban Cord: His Empire, His Motor Cars" pub. in 1985:
pp 79:
"This page, center: Two cars that played a
crucial role in
the development of the Auburn Speedster. At left is an example of the
taper-tail Stutz. The adoption by Stutz in 1927 of what it called the
taper-tail body configuration was provoked by the inability of its
conventional
roadsters to shake off Auburn roadsters in speedway competition. The
smoother
flow of air was claimed to prevent one car from being sucked along in
the wake
of another. Auburn of course responded immediately with its own
immortal
boattail speedster. Stutz even applied the taper tail to phaetons.
"According to Fred Roe, the car at right
is
Duesenberg Model
X D96 E, and its boattail speedster body was the work of the Columbia
Body Co.
Harold Ames remembered this unique car as being part of the small stock
which
was on hand when EL acquired the Duesenberg assets. The car had no top,
and
when
"Ames, accompanied by his wife, drove it
to
Chicago for
delivery to its first owner, it rained all the way. It was in
fascinating anticipation of
things to come at
ACD and almost certainly anticipated the taper-tail Stutz."
pp81:
"An element that has to fitted into the
story of the
evolution of the Auburn Speedster was recounted to me by Harold Ames.
He
remembered that most of the Model A and X Duesenbergs that remained on
hand
when EL took over the company were phaetons. There was, however, one
speedster,
and it had no provision for a top. Ames sold this car for $5,000 to a
friend of
EL's who lived in Chicago, hotel-owner Arnold Kirkeby, whom we will
meet again.
"What has to be this car is pictured on
page 120 of Fred Roe's Duesenberg. He says of it: "Car D 96 E, engine
1954. The most
exciting and influential Model X Duesenberg
body - This one of a kind speedster body built by the Columbia
Body Company is without question the prototype for the famous line of
Auburn speedsters that were built from 1928 on."
Borgeson seems to imply that former Cord
president Harold T. Ames acknowledged Roe's account, but does not state
so
implicitly.
The fourth reference to the Columbia-bodied
Model X is in Vol. 41, No. 1
(March 1993 issue) of The
Classic Car, in Frank Wilson's article, 'Birth and Death of a Classic
Speedster by Auburn' pp 2-7:
pp 3:
"One
of these cars was destined for Edwin Kirkeby, owner of the Drake and
Blackstone hotels in Chicago. His royal blue roadster with red leather
interior
was certainly eye-catching. Most significant was its styling: fan-
shaped
boattail rear, severely raked windshield, sloping front and rear lines
to the
doors and golf club compartments. In retrospect, it is easy to see this
car as
the forerunner of the Auburn Speedster, a high point in American car
design.
The Columbia Body Company of Indiana was responsible for the Kirkeby
car which
was built without provision for a top (although this, of course, would
later be
provided on the Auburn production models)."
Wilson states that Columbia Body Co. was in
Indiana - however no evidence of an Indiana firm operating under that
name can be located, I suggest he was in error.
While the previous four articles/books
state that Columbia built the boat tail speedster body on the
Model X chassis D96 E / D95 E; the vehicle's most recent owner, Dr. Peter
N. Heydon, who donated the car to the Auburn Cord Duesenberg
Museum in 2015, states the body was built by McFarlan, of Connersville,
Indiana.
The following account of the car's history was supplied by Heydon
to various media outlets after the restored car began making
appearances at various automobile shows and Concours d'Elegance:
"Duesenberg
Model X chassis no D95E (aka Car D95E), one of four 'known Model X
survivors'.
"Following
the New York show, chassis D95E was sold to Edwin Kirkeby, the owner of
Chicago’s Drake Hotel, who would not fare well in the stock market
crash of 1929. The car changed hands for the first time that year, and
over the years passed through a string of owners in Illinois and
Wisconsin until 1950, when it was purchased and put into long-term
storage. Heydon reports that at one time, chassis D95E carried a
Cadillac engine, and that it was partially re-bodied to resemble an
Auburn Boat Tail Speedster. D95 E was acquired by ACD club member Allen
Sandburg in 1960 who hope to restore it. After little progress was made
Sandburg sold the car to collector Bill Driest in the 1970s, who during
the next decade fare little better than the previous owner in getting
it restored. In 1996 Driest sold the car to Heydon, (who also owns a
1923 Duesenberg Model A), and the car's first professional restoration
commenced."
Driest
also included engine no. 1954 in the deal, which was the engine
originally installed in D96 E (at least according to Fred Roe). However,
Heydon believes engine no. 1954 was originally installed in his chassis
no. D95 E – which is in conflict with Roe's account (engine no.
1954 was installed in chassis no. D96 E).
Heydon also states the boat-tail speedster
body on his car is original to the chassis and was built by McFarlan –
possible as McFarlan was
soon producing nearly identical bodies for E.L. Cord's Auburn – however
that
differs from the four previously published accounts, which state it
was
built by the Columbia Body Co. - the subject of this writeup.
One possible explanation is that a
McFarlan-built speedster body from another car was fitted to the
chassis during its restoration, howver Heydon states the current body
"is original to the chassis."
I was hoping that Richard A Stanley's recent
(pub. 2012) book on McFarlan - 'Custom Built by McFarlan' would
shed some light on the subject, however he includes the more recent
information as supplied by Dr.
Heydon.
It would be nice if Dr. Heydon supplied the source of his information that McFarlan made the coachwork on his Model X. It's possible that Allen Sandburg, Michael Lamm,
Griffith Borgeson and Fred Roe are mistaken (but unlikely). It is also
unclear if any of them discussed the identity of the Model X
speedster's
coachbuilder with Harold T. Ames.
Pending further clarification I leave it to
the online Duesenberg community to decide if Heydon's
car bears a Columbia-built boat-tailed speedster body - or not.
Appendix 2:
Joseph B. Pospeshil held a number of US
patents, several of
which were related to vehicle bodies:
Wagon-box - US
Pat.
No. 893937 - Filed Apr 2, 1906 - Issued Jul 21, 1908 to Joseph B.
Pospeshil
Attachment for automobiles US Pat. No.
1200020 - Filed Mar
31, 1916 - Issued Oct 3, 1916 to Joseph B Pospeshil
Auxiliary frame and spring attachment - US
Pat. No. 1352625
- Filed Mar 24, 1919 - Issued Sep 14, 1920 to Joseph B. Pospeshil
Process for scoring material - US Pat. No.
1844587 - Filed
Apr 1, 1929 - Issued Feb 9, 1932 to James H. McTaggart and
Joseph B.
Pospeshil
Appendix 3:
The Federal Reporter: With Key-number
Annotations ...,
Volume 269, pub. 1921.
OLSON v. POSPESHIL.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia
Submitted November
10,1920. Decided January 3, 1921.)
No. 1333.
Patents @=>90(3)—Period of three months
for attorneys to
prepare application does not show lack of diligence.
The lapse of the period of three months
between the time a
case was turned over to patent attorneys to prepare the application and
the filing
of the application is not in itself evidence of lack of diligence on
the part
of the client, which would defeat his priority as to an application
filed by a
junior Inventor during that period.
2. Patents <^=>91(4)—Evidence held
to
show applicant
submitted earliest
drawing to attorneys before interfering
application.
In a patent interference proceeding,
evidence, aside from
the evidence of another proceeding which, was not properly presented
for
consideration, held to show that the junior applicant, in
giving the
case to his attorneys to prepare the application before the senior
application
was filed, delivered to the attorneys the earliest drawing he made
embodying
the invention, so that he was not wanting in diligence in that respect.
Patents <^=>1©8(3)—Testimony in
prior
interference
proceeding cannot be considered on notice.
Under Rules of Practice of the Patent
Office, rule 157,
providing that, on motion duly made and granted in accordance with rule
153,
testimony In an interference proceeding may be used in any other
interference
proceeding, subject to the right of any contesting party to recall
witnesses
and to take other testimony, the testimony Introduced in a prior
Interference
proceeding cannot be examined by the Commissioner of Patents, where no
motion
to bring it into the subsequent proceeding was made, but only a notice
was
given that at the hearing any of the tribunals would be asked to take
official
cognizance of such testimony.
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
Interference proceeding between Nels L.
Olson
and Joseph B. Pospeshil. From a decision of the Commissioner
of
Patents, granting priority to Pospeshil, Olson appeals.
Reversed.
Otto F. Barthel, of Detroit, Mich., and
Theodore K. Bryant,
of Washington, D. C, for appellant.
Milans & Milans, of Washington, D. C,
for appellee.
VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice. This is an
appeal from the
decision of the Commissioner of Patents, granting priority of invention
to the
senior party, Pospeshil, and reversing the decisions of the
Board of
Examiners in Chief and the Examiner of Interferences.
Pospeshil filed the
application in interference September 5, 1916, which is a division of
an
application filed March 31, 1916. Olson filed his application April 14,
1916.
The invention in interference relates to means by which an automobile
may be
converted into a truck, and is limited to the following issue:
"The combination with a semi-floating axle
structure
Including a casing, an axle journaled therein having a projecting end,
and a
wheel fixed to said projecting end, of means for converting It Into a
three-quarter floating axle structure comprising a flange secured to
the inner
side of the wheel and sur rounding the end of the casing and bearings
Interposed between said flange and said end of the casing."
It conclusively appears, and was held by
all
the tribunals
below, that Pospeshil established no date of invention,
either by
conception, disclosure, or reduction to practice, prior to the filing
of his
original application, March 31, 1916. We agree with the Examiner of
Interferences and the Board of Examiners in holding that Olson is
entitled to
September 30, 1914, for conception and disclosure of the invention in
issue.
This is established by a drawing (Exhibit 33) bearing that date. This,
however,
is not important; since Olson turned his case over to his attorneys on
January
24, 1916, with directions to prepare an application for a patent. This
was two
months before Pospeshil entered the field.
[1 ] It is urged that Olson was lacking in
diligence between
January 24 and April 14, 1916. Indeed, Pospeshil's case is limited to
this
contention, and upon this the Commissioner based his decision. We agree
with
the Examiner and the Board that the period of less than three months
for the
attorneys to prepare an application is not, in itself, evidence of lack
of
diligence on the part of the client. There is nothing to show that
Olson did
anything to delay the progress of the work in the attorneys'
office,
or that the attorneys delayed the preparation of the application beyond
the
time reasonably necessary in the due course of business.
But the Commissioner resolves the question
of diligence
against Olson by finding that the drawing (Exhibit 33) was not
submitted to his
attorneys on January 24th, when he first consulted them with reference
to
preparing his application. After reviewing the testimony of the
witnesses on
this point, and comparing it with the evidence in a prior interference,
the
Commissioner reached the following conclusion:
"It appears, therefore, from the testimony
in the prior
interference, which was given some six months before the testimony in
the
present interference, and when the present invention was not involved,
that
this drawing, Exhibit No. 33, was shown to the attorneys some time
later than
the original sketches and description. This testimony is more in accord
with
the manner in which the application was prepared than is the testimony
in the
present interferences, since, as above noted, there was no description
of, and
no claim made to, the present invention at the time the Application was
filed.
It is significant that Mr. Stickney, who Is said to have actually
prepared the
application, was not called as a witness. As noted above, the witness
Stauffiger, who made the drawings, is unable to testify when he made
them, and
nc records of the attorneys were produced to establish this date. In
order to
pre vail, Olson, who has established a conception some time prior to
January 24
1916, must show that he was diligent at the
time Pospeshil entered
the field, and as he was doing nothing with the invention, except to
submit it
to his attorneys for the purpose of filing his application, it is
necessary
that he establish that the invention was submitted to them prior to
Pospeshil's
filing date."
[2] Barring the reference to the testimony
in the earlier
interference, which we will presently consider, we think the evidence
conclusively establishes that the drawing (Exhibit 33) was taken to the
attorneys on January 24th. But, assuming that it was taken later, there
is
nothing upon which a presumption can be predicated that it was
not in the
attorneys' hands prior to March 31, 1916, Pospeshil's earliest date.
When it is
remembered that Olson filed 14 days after this date, the margin is too
narrow
to justify the presumption of delay.
[3] But we come to the more important
feature of the
case—the Commissioner's reference to the testimony in the former
interference.
When Olson had concluded his evidence in chief, counsel
for Pospeshil gave the following notice:
"Notice is given on the record by counsel
for the
party, Pospeshil, to counsel for Olson, that at the hearing
the
Examiner of Interferences and other tribunals considering this case, on
appeal
or otherwise, will be asked to take official cognizance of statements
made by
the various witnesses who have testified in this case, in connection
with the
testimony which they have given in that case."
"That case," indefinitely mentioned in the
notice,
it will be assumed refers to the earlier Olson interference. It will be
observed that the notice does not contemplate the introduction of the
earlier
record or any parts of it. It fails to designate the portions the
tribunals may
be called upon to consider, and it does not even give notice of an
intention to
introduce the record or parts of it later on in the course of the
trial. Rule
157 of the Rules of Practice of the Patent Office provides as follows:
"Upon motion duly made and granted (see
rule
153),
testimony taken in an interference proceeding may be used in any other
or
subsequent interference proceeding, so far as relevant and material,
subject,
however, to the right of any contesting party to recall witnesses whose
depositions have been taken, and to take other testimony of rebuttal of
the
depositions."
Rule 153 relates to notice of motions and
affidavits filed
in the course of contested cases, with proof of service, and for
hearing of
such motions by the tribunals in which the motion is made. Rule 157
provides
the only manner in which a record in another case may be used, namely,
by
filing a motion in the proper tribunal, with proof of service, as
required by
rule 153. It then provides that, when the motion has been allowed and a
former
record, or portions thereof, are introduced, the contesting party may
call
witnesses to rebut it.
It warrants no such practice as was
indulged
in this case.
The present notice is not in the form of a motion duly served and
allowed, as
by rule required; but it merely says to Olson that at any stage of this
proceeding, through the Patent Office, or, indeed, in this court,
without
further notice or opportunity to be heard, the former record may be
sprung to
insure your defeat. And that is what occurred. The Commissioner,
without giving
Olson a hearing or an opportunity to be heard, on his own motion, after
the
appeal had been submitted, reached into the earlier record and
extracted
therefrom an answer to a question here and an answer there, and used
them to
raise a presumption which has no support whatever in the present record.
The elementary rules of practice should be
observed as
strictly in the trial of causes in the Patent Office as in the courts,
and no
principle of law is better established than that a litigant cannot be
deprived
of his rights without notice or an opportunity to be heard.(269 F.)
The protection of neither was accorded
Olson
in respect of
the testimony gleaned by the Commissioner from the earlier record and
used to
accomplish his defeat.
The decision of the Commissioner of
Patents
is reversed, and
the clerk is directed to certify these proceedings as by law required.
Reversed.
© 2015 Mark
Theobald for Coachbuilt.com
|
