Opinion of the Court.

Now, while this semi-circular connecting piece may be an immaterial feature of the Wright invention, and the purpose for which it is employed accomplished, though less perfectly, by the extension of the guiding cylinder in the manner indicated in defendant's device, yet the patentee, having described it in the specification and declared it to be an essential feature of his invention, and having made it an element of these two claims, is not now at liberty to say that it is immaterial, or that a device which dispenses with it is an infringement, though it accomplish the same purpose in, perhaps, an equally effective manner. Vance v. Campbell, 1 Black, 427; Water-Meter Co. v. Desper, 101 U. S. 332; Gage v. Herring, 107 U. S. 640, 648; Gould v. Rees, 15 Wall. 187; Brown v. Davis, 116 U. S. 237, 249.

If the guiding cylinder of this patent had been a pioneer invention, it is possible the patentee might have been entitled to a construction of this claim broad enough to include the defendant's device, notwithstanding the absence of the semicircular connecting piece; but as we have already said, the novelty of the invention is at least open to doubt, and we think the patentee should be held to a rigid construction of these claims. The opening in the guiding cylinder, which is supposed to be the equivalent of the connecting piece d, instead of increasing so as to form a semi-circular opening, as in the patent, decreases, so as to prevent, if anything, ready access to the stuffing-box, and, under the circumstances, does not constitute a mechanical equivalent for it. Indeed, the guiding cylinder of the defendant's engine bears a stronger resemblance to those shown in the prior patents hereinafter cited than to that of the Wright patent, and hence if the prior patents anticipate the Wright cylinder, the defendant's does not infringe it.

(2) The second claim of the patent is for "the combination, in a horizontal engine-frame of the guiding cylinder b, base H, and trough-like connection D." The guiding cylinder, which is used in lieu of the ordinary parallel slides, was, however, by no means a novelty in the construction of engine-frames. It is found in different stages of perfection in several prior

:

Opinion of the Court.

patents, viz. in a patent issued to Samuel Wright as early as 1837, for locomotive engines, and was there used, as the patentee states, "to subserve the twofold purpose of a (steam) pump and guide;" in the patent to Gelston Sanford of February 15, 1859, in which the invention related to elongating the cylinder, "by which means it becomes a part of the frame, used for the support of the crank shaft, and so constructed that when bored out forms a guide and rest for the crosshead;" in the patent to William Wright of August 8, 1865, in which the movement of the piston is transmitted to the main crank by means of a connecting rod, jointed to the cross-head, to which the piston is attached, and which is guided in ways or guides, fast to the frame; and in which a semi-circular connecting piece is also shown; in that to John B. Root of August 14, 1866, in which the piston also works in two cylindrical guides attached to the cylinder heads; in that to Maxwell & Cope of February 13, 1872; in that to Edward H. Cutler of November 26, 1872; and in that to George II. Babcock of December 10, 1872.

It is true that none of these patents exhibit distinctly the trough-like connection D of the Wright patent, but that also is found in the patent to Chilion M. Farrar of March 19, 1872, in which it is fully shown in the drawings, though not described in the specification, and is used in connection with the ordinary flat guides or parallel slides.

Wright's only invention, then, was in the combination of the cylindrical guide with the trough shown in the Farrar patent. Did this accomplish a new and valuable result it is quite possible that a patent therefor might have been sustained, but we do not find this to be the case. The cylindrical guide performs the same functions as in the prior patents; the trough, in which the connecting rod works in the Farrar patent, is practically the same as in the Wright patent, and the combination is a mere aggregation of their respective functions. If the combination of the trough and cylindrical guide of the Wright patent gives greater lightness and strength to the frame than the combination of the trough and the flat guides of the Farrar patent, it is a mere difference in degree,

Statement of the Case.

a carrying forward of an old idea, a result, perhaps, somewhat more perfect than had theretofore been attained, but not rising to the dignity of invention. We have repeatedly held patents of this description to be invalid. Stimpson v. Woodman, 10 Wall. 117; Smith v. Nichols, 21 Wall. 112; Guidet v. Brooklyn, 105 U. S. 550; Hall v. Macneale, 107 U. S. 90. The decree of the court below dismissing the bill is, therefore,

Affirmed.

WRIGHT V. Beggs. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. No. 2, argued with No. 1. Decided October 22, 1894. MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the court. This was a suit against the defendant Beggs as maker of the engine used by Yuengling, and is disposed of by the opinion in the last case holding the Wright patent to be invalid. The decree of the court below dismissing the bill is, therefore,

No. 550. Submitted October 17, 1894. Decided October 29, 1894.

The act of the legislature of Arizona of February 21, 1883, authorizing Pima County in that Territory to issue its bonds in aid of the construction of a railway, is a violation of the restrictions imposed upon territorial legislatures by Rev. Stat. § 1889, as amended by the act of June 8, 1878, c. 168, and the bonds issued under the authority assumed to be conferred by that statute created no obligation against the county which a court of law can enforce.

THIS was an action originally begun in the District Court of the First Judicial District of Arizona upon 2250 coupons

Opinion of the Court.

attached to 150 bonds, issued by the defendant county July 1, 1883, and payable to the Arizona Narrow Gauge Railroad Company or bearer. The railroad in question was organized under a general act of the territorial legislature for the incorporation of railroads, passed in 1879, which gave them power to make all contracts, acquire real and personal property, to sue and be sued, to borrow money necessary for the construction of the road, to issue bonds and notes therefor, and to receive donations or voluntary grants of real and personal property to that end. The bonds in question were issued by the board of supervisors of the defendant county under an act of the legislature of Arizona of February 21, 1883, entitled "An act to promote the construction of a certain railroad," and were part of a series of 200 bonds issued in pursuance of said act, and exchanged for a like number of bonds of the railroad company of like amounts, bearing like interest, and running like times as the bonds in suit.

Defendant demurred to the complaint both generally and specially, and upon argument the demurrer was sustained and judgment entered in favor of defendant.

Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of the Territory, by which the judgment of the District Court was affirmed. He thereupon sued out this writ of error.

Mr. W. H. Barnes and Mr. W. H. Rossington for appellant.

Mr. Charles Weston Wright for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE BROWN, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

This case involves the validity of certain bonds issued by the county of Pima under an act of the legislative assembly of Arizona, approved February 21, 1883, authorizing and requiring the board of supervisors to issue $200,000 of bonds of such county, and to exchange the same in lots of $50,000 each for an equal number of the bonds of the Arizona and Narrow Gauge Railroad Company, secured by a mortgage

Opinion of the Court.

upon its road. Assuming that the bonds were issued in conformity with this act, the act itself is claimed to be in conflict with certain acts of Congress upon the subject of the organization of Territories.

By Rev. Stat. § 1889, of a chapter containing a provision common to all the Territories, "the legislative assemblies of the several Territories shall not grant private charters or especial privileges, but they may, by general incorporation acts, permit persons to associate themselves together as bodies corporate for mining, manufacturing, and other industrial pursuits, or the construction or operation of railroads, wagonroads, irrigating-ditches, and the colonization and improvement of lands in connection therewith, or for colleges, seminaries, churches, libraries, or any benevolent, charitable, or scientific association."

In 1878 this section was amended by an explanatory act, (Act of June 8, 1878, c. 168, 20 Stat. 101,) to the effect that the restrictions contained in section 1889 "shall not be construed as prohibiting the legislative assemblies from creating towns, cities, or other municipal corporations, and providing for the government of the same, and conferring upon them the corporate powers and privileges, necessary to their local administration, by either general or special acts." Following this there is a paragraph validating acts theretofore passed creating municipal corporations, and providing further that "nothing herein shall have the effect to create any private right, except that of holding and executing municipal offices, or to divest any such right, or to make valid or invalid any contract or obligation heretofore made by or on behalf of any such town, city, or other municipal corporation, or to authorize any such corporation to incur hereafter any debt or obligation other than such as shall be necessary to the administration of its internal affairs."

In the face of these restrictions upon its power, the legis lature of Arizona, on February 21, 1883, passed the act in question, making it the duty of the board of supervisors to issue $200,000 of county bonds, and to deliver the same to the railroad company in exchange for corresponding bonds