Published Writings of Wilbur and Orville Wright - NASA's History Office

Affidavit of John A. D. McCurdy. [Buffalo, New York:
January 11, 1915], 13 pp. [typescript]
Affidavit of Henry T. Wehman. [Hammondsport, New
York: January 11, 1915], 4 pp. [typescript]
Affidavit of Dr. Albert F. Zahm. [Hammondsport, New
York: January 11, 1915], 13 pp. and 11 photos. [typescript]
Affidavit of William Elwood Doherty. [Hammondsport,
New York: January 12, 1915], 3 pp. [typescript]
Additional Affidavit of John A. D. McCurdy. [Buffalo,
New York: January 12, 1915], 3 pp. [typescript]
Charles M. Manley s 2nd Additional Affidavit. [New
York: January 13, 1915], 5 pp. [typescript]
Affidavit of Charles A. Stiles. [New York: March 18,
1915], 3 pp. [typescript]
Affidavit of Roy Knabenshue. [Dayton, Ohio: March 25,
1915], 2 pp. [typescript]
Affidavit of Harry C. Watts. [Los Angeles: March 27,
1915], 1 p. [typescript]
Affidavit of Walter R. Brookins. [Dayton, Ohio: April
16, 1915], 5 pp. [typescript]
Affidavit of Orville Wright. [Dayton, Ohio: April 24,
1915], 48 pp., +illus. [typescript]
A reply to a number of the affidavits filed above
with a discussion also of prior art and extensive testimony
on the Langley Machine and Tests at
Hammondsport, pp. 31—48.
Affidavit of Walter R. Brookins. [Newcastle,
Pennsylvania: April 30, 1915], 7 pp. [typescript]
Affidavit of Orville Wright. [Dayton, Ohio: May 10,
1915], 3 pp. [typescript]
States that he has reason to believe but has been
unable to prove that knocked-down Curtiss aeroplanes
were being shipped to England and assembled
there with the incorporation of a double acting
aileron control.
E. E. Winkley Vs. Orville & Wilbur Wright
Brief for Wright & Wright. In the United States Patent
Office. Consolidated Interference No. 32,042 Flying
Court Records
88 Wilbur & Orville Wright
Machines. Springfield, Ohio: The Young & Bennett
Printers, [1912], 10 pp.
Submitted, May 1912, in an interference which
was declared on August 12, 1910, by the
Commissioner of Patents in an action by Erastus E.
Winkley, an inventor, who developed an automatic
control for sewing machines and conceived the idea
that this control could be applied to the regulation of
flying machine wings and claimed its disclosure at
an earlier date than that of the Wrights.
A decision by the examiner of interference,
August 7, 1912, awarding priority of invention to the
Wrights. This was appealed but the original decision
was affirmed by the examiner in chief, May 26,
1913.
Flying Machines, Testimony in Behalf of Wright &
Wright. United States Patent Office Interference No.
32,042. [Interferences Nos. 32,042, 32,302, 32,304,
32,305 and 32,306 Consolidated.] Dayton, Ohio:
[1912], 37 pp., +illus.
Includes depositions taken at Dayton, Ohio,
January 9-10, 1912, of Orville Wright, pp. 7—19, and
of Wilbur Wright, pp. 19—25, with testimony on the
conception of their patent no. 415,105, filed
February 10, 1908, and introducing into the record
several drawings used for their patent application
and correspondence with Katharine Wright and H. A.
Toulmin regarding it.
The Wright Company Vs. Louis Paulhan
Brief for Complainant on Motion for Injunction. In the
United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New
York. [Springfield, Ohio: 1910], 46 pp.
Submitted in appeal by the Wright Company for
an injunction to restrain Louis Paulhan, French aviator,
from using several flying machines, claimed to
infringe the Wright patents, which were imported
into the United States for exhibition purposes.
Exhibit Book [New York: 1910], 113 pp., +illus.
Compilation of complainant s and defendant s
exhibits, comprising patents, drawings, blueprints,
and photographs relating to points at issue.
Opinion of Judge Hand Granting Preliminary
Injunction in Favor of the Wright Company,
Complainants, against Louis Paulhan, Defendant.
Circuit Court of the United States, Southern District of
New York. [New York: 1910], 15 pp.
Published also in Federal Reporter, May-June
1910, vol. 177, pp. 261—271 and, together with Judge