·4evices ,are, ; (Appleton Miunif'g' Co. v. 09., 60 'inven:tJi.on is in the device;which e',two, or,',Jl)J)"',re,'t'u,D£tions, one of great and another of , t·., , g:: 'Worth; it maybe.ftJUPJXiSed to have a function which it has nqt;J;heJ>ateI!.t ia uponJ:he deNice, and not upon the functions, real v. Sperry Electric Co., 7 C. C. A. Fw. 186. "A rirlsta.keBdescription, or even misconception of the'Qperationof a ,devicejrwli:ieh isitself fitly described and claimed, not vitiate a patent.'.' Temple Pump Co.v. GoBS Pump, etc., 00., 'l C. C. A.: .17" ;58 Fed. 196. .By the decision of the /itupreme'<:Qurtin eolla,rCol,:T. Van Dusen, 23 Wall. 530,563, "new :colIlJ1lerceare,not,plltentable, as new unless)t'fI,ppeaJlS "in:the given, case that the productionol the new exel'clMof1,iuventionor discQvery beyond what was ne<le8$SJ'Y, to construct the apparatus for fts manufacture or by the same :principle a machine, apparatus, or combination,the conception and construction of which involvE!4 no, in;yention, cannot be patentable by reason of any new effect, : or product obtained by its'employment In Fuller v. U. S. 288, itiiJ said: "Patents for a machine will not be :,j\qstaiped if the clab::tlAs f()r a, result, the established rule invention, if Jituy, within the meaning of the patent act, .the ',by which the· result is obtained, merely in·the mode of' operati6n, hidependent of the mecllAnical devicesemplo;}";ed; nor will a patent be held valid for a. principle or for an idea; or any other mere abstraction. Burr v. Duryee,l,'Wall.531." Apd in Robertl,.v. Ryer, 91 U. 13.150, 157, is thia "It is no' new invention to use an old machine for a neWI!'!ll'p()Be. The inventor of a machine, is entitled to the benefit of all-'theuses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not." To same effect see Stow v. Chicago, 104 U. 'S. 550; Healdv. Rice, Id. 755; Stimpson v. Woodman, 10 Wall. 117; Tuckerv. Spalding, 13 Wall. 453. If, therefore, it be conceded that Corbin was first to'mount a lever upon the tongue of a wheel harrow, and,that thereby a new result or advantage incident to .the operation of the harrow was gained, yet the dEfcree, below wascight, because, the use of the lever in similar for corresponding purposes being familiar, its introd'!lctionrinto Corbin's' combination involved' no possible measure of inventl.Qll. The decree of the circuit court should be af80 ordered.
!THE ADVANOE. BRONS'JlED v. THE ADVANCE. (Dilltrict Court.·S> D. 'New Yor'k.:M:arch 16, 1894.)
A Ubitet1"St8'tesdlstriet' 'cou,rll!.alil "power to make an allowance to the clerk: oLtl:le :court for 'services rendered beyond what are required by law. . c()mpensatlop allpwedJ,u.; :the case of a transfer by him of a
large tunc! from the c!ep08ltory of court to a trnBt e&mpany; · ebange lI)ade by order of court on appllcatlon of the proctors I.n Interest, and for their pecuniary benefit, and Imposing on tbeclerk additional cares, responslbillties, and duties.
In .<!\.dmiralty. On motion by the clerk for extra allowance. Carter & Ledyard, for claimants. Samuel H. Lyman, pro se. '
BROWN, District Judge. The removal of the deposits in these cases from the depository prescribed by law and the regulations, imposed upon the clerk additional cares, responsibilities and duties beyond those previously existing. The change was made by the order of the court,. upon the a£lplication of the parties in interest, and for their pecuniary benefit; it has resulted to their considerable pecuniary advantage. It was made at a time of great in financial matters, and to the threatened prejudice of the registry account in the lawful depository. It could not have been supposed that these additional duties and responsibilities would have been imposed upon the clerk without compensation. As said by Mr. Justice Blatchford, in the case of The Alice Tainter, 14 Blatchf. 225, Fed. Cas. No. 196:
"It is not reasonable that the service should be without compensation. As it Is for the benefit of suitors, it Is reasonable that suitors should pay for It."
The right of the court to make such allowances for extra services beyond what are required by law has been long exercised under the deliberate judgment of Mr. Justice Nelson and Judge Betts, as expressed in the rule of May 28, 1859. See former District Co'Urt Rules, pp. 46, 47, where. it is said, that"Upon the usages and doctrines of courts of the United States, officers called upon to render services in those courts, according to their rules and modes of practice, for which no specific fees or costs are appointed by statute law, wlll be awarded compensation therefor by the courts respectively in which the services are performed, corresponding in amount to that allowed by law In the state, for similar services rendered by state officers, in a like capacity, particularly In chancery procedure. 1 Blatch!. 652; Hathaway v. Roach, 2 Woodb. & M. 63 [Fed. Oas. No. 6,213]."
An extra allowance of one-half of 1 per cent. is in accordance with the rule thus indicated. It is as small as would, I think, be anywhere recognized as appropriate in financial transactions; and it Is, therefore, allowed in this case as a reasonable compensation.
LEWIS et aI. v. TRANT. (OlrcuJt Court of Appeals, First Circuit. February 23, 1894.) No. 66. L ADHIRALTY APPEALS - METHOD OF REVIEW IN OmCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL. The provision of the judiciary act ot February 16, 1875, which took trom the supreme court the power to review the findings of fact on admiralty