Just A Car Guy: I just noticed my battery water jug (inherited from a good friend) was made by some company with the last name Hennessy... it had me wondering, is there any connection to the Hennessy in Texas that makes cars a lot faster? Answer nope. But there is some cool history here

Monday, March 10, 2025

I just noticed my battery water jug (inherited from a good friend) was made by some company with the last name Hennessy... it had me wondering, is there any connection to the Hennessy in Texas that makes cars a lot faster? Answer nope. But there is some cool history here

So, this has me wondering which Jack P Hennessy had the company that made this water jug.

This Jack P Hennessy was born in 1919, (died in 2001 https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/257088653/jack_patrick-hennessy ) and after university, as World War II escalated, he enlisted in the U.S. Army seeing active duty in the Philippines and Korea both during World War II.

He attained the rank of 1st Lieutenant. After the war, Jack returned to Los Angeles but soon joined with his father to develop further what would eventually become Hennessy Industries, the leading manufacturer and manufacturer representatives of tire service equipment in the country for several decades.

He and his wife were Hollywood types, played golf at the country clubs, and played golf with Bob Hope and his wife Dolores... possibly because after high school she was working in the mailroom at MGM Studios, followed by 4 special years at the MGM front reception desk in the administrative office building. She would sign-in all the stars, and executives who passed through alongside her desk each day. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/195384587/shirlee-hennessy

The Coats tire changer, Bada wheel balancer and Kenamental tire studs were among the top products produced or represented, with Ford Motorcraft products added in the latter years of the 1970's. https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/latimes/name/jack-hennessy-obituary?id=28040643

In 1960, he was sued for copyright or patent infringement for improvements on certain devices known as circumferentially traveling type tire mounting devices. https://casetext.com/case/moore-v-jack-p-hennessy-co

During the 2nd World War the plaintiff, Roosevelt Moore, was in the Armed Forces of the United States, stationed in India. The problems of the Air Force in that significant area were complicated immeasurably by the high incidence of pneumatic tire trouble and the frequency with which tires had to be changed. The difficulty of mounting and dismounting tires on the planes caused inordinate delay, reducing the effectiveness of their operations.

Working with inadequate tools and hampered by the problem of supplies, the plaintiff herein, with surprising ingenuity, devised an apparatus which speeded up to a great degree the processes involved in tire changing, thereby facilitating the performance of the planes.

The defendants counter with the denial of infringement and assertion that the plaintiff's patent is invalid, having been anticipated in every respect by previously granted patents, notably the Dickey patent No. 1,587,634 (1926) and the Weaver patent No. 1,341,727 (1920), among others.

His contribution to the effective operation of the airplanes was recognized by the military authorities by way of special citation, and after cessation of hostilities he was assisted in his efforts to secure a patent on the apparatus he had constructed. It is a tribute to his skill that under such unfavorable circumstances he should have succeeded in developing the tire mounting implement. A patent was issued on a limited aspect of the machine. Because of lack of funds the invention was not marketed. But on June 30, 1958, and June 25, 1959, plaintiff instituted suits for patent infringement against certain individuals who, the plaintiff deemed, were unjustly appropriating the fruits of his invention.

Since, then, it is the determination of this court that the Moore patent is invalid, there can be no infringement thereon by the defendants. And, further, even if the Moore patent were to be found valid, because of the findings above referred to with reference to the Dickey patent, the Coats device does not constitute an infringement.