From August 1899 Machinery

Beginning by 1889 and continuing until about 1901, J. G. Timolat of New York City manufactured and sold a portable drilling machine that was powered by steam or compressed air. It was used in repairing boilers, ships, bridges, or other large work where the drill needed to go to the work-piece. The drilling machine had been patented in 1887 by John Moffet of New York City and Bayonne, N. J.

The drilling machine described in the Moffet patent is considered to be the first practical heavy-duty portable drilling machine. It was capable of drilling 2-inch holes in steel, was light enough that one worker could move it and fasten it into position, and each such worker could drill at least ten times as many holes per day compared to using the manual ratchet drills that the Moffet drill replaced. Moffet's drilling machine used a rotary steam/air motor that he had patented in 1885, but his 1887 drill patent applied generally to a drill using any source of rotation.

James Guyon Timolat (1862-1949) was already running a successful chemical manufacturing business when he bought the rights to Moffat's patents and began manufacturing the drill and its integral motor. This drill seems to have met with quick success, and competitive products soon appeared on the market. Timolat was aggressive in litigating his patent rights, and in a series of lawsuits the courts found that the Moffet drill was indeed the first commercially successful product of its type and merited a broad interpretation of its patent claims.

In 1901, customers of the Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. received a letter from J. G. Timolat informing them of the court decisions regarding the Moffet patent and stating that Chicago Pneumatic's portable drilling machine infringed it. In short order the Chicago Pneumatic company followed up with a letter of their own, announcing that they had licensed the Moffat patent from Timolat. This likely led to other makers of portable drilling machines agreeing to license the patent, and the J. G. Timolat machine—which unlike its competitors had not made the transition to electric motor power—disappeared from the market. Timolat must have made a fortune from the patent licensing agreements, and continued making even larger fortunes from his chemical businesses, Oakland Chemical Co. and Earle & Co.

Information Sources

• US and German patents provide some information on the drilling machine and its inventor.
• 1891-07-11 The American Engineer, page 12: article on the Moffet portable drill manufactured by J. G. Timolat, 59 South Fifth ave., New York City
• 1894 Testimonials of the Improved Moffet Portable Drill, "Manufactured by J.G. Timolat, 465 & 467 West Broadway, New York".
• 1899 The Improved Moffet Portable Drill, "Operated by Steam Or Compressed Air : Manufactured by J. G. Timolat, 465 West Broadway, New York."
• October 1901 Municipal Engineering, Volume XXI No. 4, page 259. "J. G. Timolat, 464 West Broadway, New York, publishes a recent decision of the United States circuit court, sustaining the patent for the improved Moffet portable drill."
• October 1901 Stone (Volume XXIII No. 4), page 388.

  The Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., of the Monadnock block, Chicago, is sending the following circular letter to its customers: Referring to the circular letter of Mr. J. G. Timolat, recently sent you, announcing the decision of the United States Circuit Court in favor of the Moffet Patent No. 369120 on portable drilling machines: This Company has, after consultation with leading patent attorneys and a careful examination, become convinced that the portable power drills made by itself, as well as by all other concerns, are infringements on said Moffet patent; and in order to protect its customers from litigation and further expense, has purchased a license under said patent, which protects all drills we have manufactured and sold or shall hereafter manufacture and sell. Trusting you will appreciate the prompt action we took in this matter to protect our customers against expense and inconvenience, we beg to remain, etc.

• Litigation involving patent included Timolat v. Manning (110 Fed 206), Timolat v. Faibanks, Timolat et. al. v. Franklin Boiler Works Co. (temporary injunction was 48 C. C. A. 405, 122 Fed. 69; 118 Fed. 852, 123 Fed. 899.), Timolat et. al. v. Philadelphia Pneumatic Tool Co. (131 F. 257, 1904). Other patents referenced in these lawsuits include US patents Allen 306,375, Fullam 67,284, Noteman 273,136, Whitcomb 249,130, and Leach 244,629, and British patents GB-188,202,409 and GB-187,801,232.
• 1903 hearing at the United State Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the matter of Timolat et. al. v. Franklin Boiler Works Co., page 405. The suit involved alleged infringement against US patent 369,120 granted to John Moffet for "portable drilling machine". Timolat was accused of unreasonable delay in filing suit against Franklin Boiler Works; the counter-argument was that he was busy with another similar lawsuit involving the same patent, Timolat v. Manning, 110 Fed. 206, which began in July 1899. The Court found that Timolat was "under no obligation to sue every one at the same time". Apparently the Timolat v. Manning suit involved a detailed review of the state of the art in portable drilling machines, and concluded that "Moffet was the first to construct a successful portable power drill for heaving boring. His drill seems to meet all the demands of the situation. It is capable of boring holes from over two inches in diameter down to those of the smallest size. It is easily carried about, comparatively simple in construction, not prohibitive in price, and does ten times the work of the hand drills previously employed. The result was brought about after years of patient endeavor, such which time, money and brainwork were freely given to the task." The lawsuit against Franklin Boiler Works saw the introduction of "new" prior art in the form of "the Higginson and Mead English patents and the Straub and Leach American patents". But the court said that "Whatever combinations may be disclosed in the patents here first introduced, we are without any evidence to show that they were practicable, or that any effort, even, was made to embody them with working structures."