Opinion of the Court. to be operated upon, with a rest preceding the cutting tool, when it is combined with a guide cam, or its equivalent, which modifies the movement of the cutting tool, all operating together for the purpose set forth." The alleged improvement is in the mode of producing turned articles of “irregular forms," and the purpose set forth is the turning of such articles as are to be brought to a point or to be turned or finished at one end, and which ought, therefore, to be held by the opposite end in order to be operated upon. The material is not specified, but it must be cylindrical and straight. The complainant's expert testifies on cross-examination: "The patent is for a combination. The new part consists of elements, each and all of them old and familiar in preëxisting combinations. They are, therefore, the griping chuck; the supporting rest preceding the cutting tool; a cutting tool having the reciprocating motion towards and from the axis of the piece to be operated upon, under the control of a guide cam or former, so organized as to be also under the constant control of delicate adjusting apparatus, by which the required diameter of a piece to be operated upon may be constantly preserved without disturbing the functional performance of former and cutting tool, substantially as set forth and described, all operating together for the purpose set forth. It is, then, the combination of these several elements, as organized, which constitutes the new part." But the combination claimed is the combination of griping chuck, a rest preceding the cutting tool, a cutting tool, and a guide cam or its equivalent; and complainants cannot now be permitted to read into it any delicate adjusting apparatus not originally included in the claim, and then insist, in the words of the witness, that there is "a margin of patentable novelty." The Springs completed their first machine in September or October, 1857. Their patent was issued May 10, 1859. As found by the Circuit Court, the testimony leaves no doubt that as early as 1845, William Murdock used a lathe at Winchendon, Massachusetts, for turning pointed skewers of wood. This had a chuck, a cutting tool, a rest preceding the cutting tool, and a pattern governing the movement of the Opinion of the Court. cutting tool to shape the skewer to the desired form; or, in other words, all the elements of the Spring combination, as claimed. Defendants' expert, Brevoort, correctly says: "This Murdock device shows the combination of a holding chuck which holds the material at one end while the other end is left free, a rest preceding a cutting tool, which latter is controlled in its movements by guide or former, so that the parts operating together will produce irregular forms. Now this is the invention referred to in the claim of the Spring patent, and this Murdock lathe undoubtedly contains the invention recited in the Spring patent, with the exception that in the Murdock lathe the parts are adapted for turning wood, while in the Spring device they are more especially adapted for turning metal." And he continues: "I understand that this Murdock lathe was used for turning large numbers of yarn skewers, such as were used at one time in mills where cotton goods were manufactured. 'Defendants' Exhibit Murdock Skewer, W. G. H., Sp. Ex'r,' shows one of these skewers, and when I compare this skewer with a sewing-machine needle, as the question requested me to do, I find that both the needle and the skewer are brought to a point. The Murdock lathe, the Spring device, and the Pernot lathe all being adapted for producing points upon the articles subjected to their action, the only difference being that the Pernot and Spring lathes were adapted for making points on metal, while the Murdock lathe is adapted for making points on wooden blanks, all of the three lathes referred to, as well as the Wright lathe and the Waymoth lathe, being so constructed as to produce the desired configuration upon the surface of the turned blank by using a pattern or former of the desired shape. In all the lathes referred to by me in this testimony the irregular form of the article turned is reached by the former, guide, or pattern causing the cutting tool, as it was slid toward the holding or griping chuck, to approach or recede from the axial line of the work, and in all these lathes the cutting tool is preceded by a rest through a hole in which the work revolves, leaving one end of the work free, while the other is held and turned by the chuck." Opinion of the Court. There is nothing in the specification about the nature of the material to be used, nor is the device limited to the production of awls and needles, although the drawings show that mode of applying the invention, and "the particular instance illustrated" is that "designed and adapted to the formation of awls or machine needles." But the invention claimed is not restricted to lathes for turning sewing-machine needles, nor did the patentees by disclaimer place any such limit upon the construction of the patent. The rule laid down in Pennsylvania Railroad v. Locomotive Truck Co., 110 U. S. 490, that the application of an old process or machine to a similar or analogous subject, with no change in the manner of applying it, and no result substantially distinct in its nature, will not sustain a patent, even if the new form of result has not before been contemplated, has been applied in very many cases by this court. Thompson v. Boisselier, 114 U. S. 1; Peters v. Active Mfg Co., 129 U. S. 530; Peters v. Hanson, 129 U. S. 542; Aron v. Manhattan Railway Co., 132 U. S. 84; Watson v. Cincinnati &c. Railway Co., 132 U. S. 161. In the employment of the chuck, the rest, the cutting tool and the guide cam in the making of awls and needles, the patentees displayed the skill of their calling, which involved. "only the exercise of the ordinary faculties of reasoning upon the materials supplied by a special knowledge, and the facility of manipulation which results from its habitual and intelligent practice." Hollister v. Benedict Mfg Co., 113 U. S. 59, 73. The purpose of Murdock, in reference to the wooden skewer, was the same as the purpose of the Springs in reference to articles of any material which could be worked up on their machines. The claim was certainly broad enough to include Murdock's invention, and no disclaimer was ever filed; and even with a limitation as to the article, patentable novelty was not present, within the rule upon that subject. The art of turning is the art of turning, whether applied to wood or metal; and it would seem that there was here nothing more than the substitution of one material for another, without involving an essentially new mode of construction. And be that Statement of the Case. as it may, there was no restriction as to material. Operation in metal would, of course, demand variations in organization, but not necessarily anything more than would result from the experience of the intelligent mechanic. The Springs did not claim a combination of a slotted guide cam, an adjusting screw, a spring, guiding rods, etc., with a former, a cutting tool, a rest, and a griping chuck, and as it stands the claim was, in the existing state of the art, for an analogous or double use, and not patentable. The Circuit Court was clearly right, and its decree is Affirmed. GLENN v. FANT. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 357. Argued March 11, 1890. Decided March 24, 1890. A stipulation was filed in this cause to the effect that the court should consider the cause as if the general issue and other named pleas had been pleaded and issue joined; that the cause should be heard upon 44 an agreed statement of facts annexed with leave to refer to exhibits filed therewith;" and that the cause might be submitted to the court to decide on such statement, exhibits and pleadings. No bill of exceptions was taken, there was no finding of facts by the court below, nor was any case stated by the parties, analogous to a special verdict, stating the ultimate facts, and presenting questions of law only; Held, that this stipulation could not be regarded as taking the place of a special verdict, or a special finding of facts, and that this court had no jurisdiction to determine the questions of law thereon arising. THIS was an action at law commenced in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error on the 11th day of December, 1883, to recover certain amounts, for the payment of which the defendant was alleged to be liable upon an assessment levied on shares of stock in the National Express and Transportation Company of Virginia, held by him. The defendant demurred to the declaration, but subsequently it was agreed that the demurrer should be overruled, Statement of the Case. and a stipulation was filed to the effect that the court should consider the cause as if there had been pleaded the general issue and certain other pleas in the stipulation named, and as if issue had been joined thereon; that the cause should be heard upon an "agreed statement of facts," annexed as part of the stipulation, with leave to.any party to refer to Exhibits X and Y, therewith filed; that a jury was thereby waived; that the cause might be submitted to the court to hear and decide upon said agreed statement of facts, exhibits and pleadings; and that either party might "rely upon any and all grounds of action or defence arising from said agreed statement of facts, exhibits and pleadings." The statement referred to was to the effect that the defendant was a subscriber for and assignee of the number of shares of the capital stock of the National Express and Transportation Company of Virginia in respect of which he was sued; that a certain deed of trust was as set forth in the record, therewith filed, marked Exhibit X; that Exhibit X was the record of a certain cause between W. W. Glenn and the National Express and Transportation Company of Virginia, in the Chancery Court of the city of Richmond, in the State of Virginia, afterwards removed into the Circuit Court of Henrico County, Virginia; and that on the 8th day of August, 1866, one Reynolds, claiming to be a stockholder of said company, filed his bill against said company in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia, and certain proceedings were therein had, as would appear from the record in that cause, filed and marked Exhibit Y. It was agreed that the laws of the State of Virginia might be referred to as a part of the statement of facts, and certain other matters of fact were set forth, not material to be repeated here. The cause came on at special term, the demurrer was overruled, and the stipulation filed "with an agreed statement of facts thereto annexed, and with exhibits, marked 'X' and 'Y," and thereupon the cause was certified to the generai term of the court to be heard there in the first instance, "upon said stipulation and agreed statement of facts thereto annexed and exhibits therewith filed and the pleadings, in accordance |