Opinion of the Court. genius of our laws. In a country within which not even treason can be prosecuted after the lapse of three years, it can scarcely be supposed that an individual would remain forever liable to a pecuniary forfeiture." Whatever prejudice there may have been in ancient times against statutes of limitations, it is a cardinal principle of modern law and of this court, that they are to be treated as statutes of repose, and are not to be construed so as to defeat their obvious intent to secure the prompt enforcement of claims during the lives of the witnesses, and when their recollection may be presumed to be still unimpaired. As was said of the statute of limitations by Mr. Justice Story (Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. 351, 360): "It is a wise and beneficial law, not designed merely to raise a presumption of payment of a just debt, from lapse of time, but to afford security from stale demands, after the true state of the transactions may have been forgotten, or be incapable of explanation, by reason of the death or removal of witnesses." This language is peculiarly applicable to patent cases, in which questions of anticipation frequently rest in oral testimony only, and are required to be proved to the satisfaction of the court by something more than a mere preponderance of evidence. If these actions be exempted from the state statute of limitations, it would undoubtedly follow that other statutes of a similar nature, adopting the local practice for certain purposes, would be equally inapplicable. Yet it was held by this court in Vance v. Campbell, 1 Black, 427, Haussknecht v. Claypool, 1 Black, 431, and in Wright v. Bales, 2 Black, 535, that, under section 721, rules of evidence prescribed by the laws of the States were obligatory upon the Federal courts in patent cases, and that the plaintiff was a competent witness in his own behalf where, by the law of the State, parties may be sworn. Indeed, if the local statutes of limitations be not applicable to these actions, it is difficult to see why the process, declarations, and other pleadings in the code States should not be in common law form, notwithstanding section 914, adopting the state practice in that particular; or why attachments should Opinion of the Court. be permitted, though authorized by state laws, (sec. 915;) nor why a capias ad respondendum should not issue immediately upon rendition of a judgment, notwithstanding sec. 916, entitling parties recovering judgments to remedies similar to those authorized by state laws; or why parties, arrested or imprisoned upon execution issued in these cases, should be entitled to discharge under sec. 991; or why, in every other respect, the suit should not be conducted regardless of the laws of the particular State. The truth is that statutes of limitations affect the remedy only, and do not impair the right, and that the settled policy of Congress has been to permit rights created by its statutes to be enforced in the manner and subject to the limitations. prescribed by the laws of the several States. As was said by Mr. Justice Wayne in McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312, 327: "Is it [the statute of limitations] a plea that settles the right of a party on a contract or judgment, or one that bars the remedy? Whatever diversity of opinion there may be among jurists upon this point, we think it well settled to be a plea to the remedy, and consequently that the lex fori must prevail." It was held in that case that the statute of limitations of the State of Georgia could be pleaded in an action brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Georgia, on a judgment recovered in South Carolina. Not only is this so, but we have repeatedly held that rights created by Congress are subject to the police power, as well as to the taxing and licensing laws of the several States. In Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U. S. 501, it was held that a party to whom letters patent were issued for "an improved burning oil," whereof he claimed to be the inventor, was properly convicted in Kentucky for selling the oil, it having been condemned by the state inspector as unsafe for illuminating purposes, and that the enforcement of the statute interfered with no right conferred by the letters patent. In Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344, it was held that the tangible property in which an invention or discovery may be exhibited or carried into effect was properly taxable under the laws of the Opinion of the Court. State, although a statute requiring an agent for the sale of articles manufactured in other States to obtain a license was unconstitutional, as in conflict with the commerce clause of the Constitution. So, in Ager v. Murray, 105 U. S. 126, 128, it was held that a patent right might be subjected by bill in equity to the payment of a judgment debt of the patentee. "The provisions of the patent and copyright acts," said the court, "do not exonerate the right and property thereby acquired by him [the patentee] . from liability to be subjected by suitable judicial proceedings to the payment of his debts." The rights of a patentee have also been held to pass to an assignee in insolvency under the state law, if the court so orders. Ashcroft v. Walworth, 1 Holmes, 152; Barton v. White, 144 Mass. 281; In re Keach, 14 R. I. 571. In Beatty's Administrators v. Burnes's Administrators, 8 Cranch, 98, 107, 108, an action was brought in the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia to recover moneys paid defendant by the city of Washington for land taken by the government. Plaintiffs sought to support their action under a statute of Maryland of 1791. Defendant pleaded the statute of limitations of the State of Maryland. "It is contended," said Mr. Justice Story, "that the present suit, being a statute remedy, is not within the purview of the statute of limitations. But we know of no difference in this particular between a common law and statute right. Each must be pursued according to the general rule of law, unless a different rule be prescribed by statute, and where the remedy is limited to a particular form of action, all the general incidents of that action must attach upon it. Upon any other construction it would follow that the cases would be without any limitation at all.. Now the statute of limitations has been emphatically declared a statute of repose, and we should not feel at liberty to break in upon its general construction by allowing an exception which has not acquired the complete sanction of authority." Still nearer in point is McCluny v. Silliman, 3 Pet. 270, 277, in which the plaintiff sued the defendant, as register of the United States land office in Ohio, for damages for having refused to note on his books applica Opinion of the Court. tions made by him for the purchase of land within his district. Defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. Upon writ of error from this court, plaintiff claimed that the statute of limitations of the State was not pleadable in an action. brought for malfeasance in office, especially where the plaintiff's rights accrued to him under a law of Congress. The statute was held to be a good defence. "In giving a construction to this statute," said the court, "where the action is barred by its denomination, the court cannot look into the cause of action. By bringing his action on the case, the plaintiff has selected the appropriate remedy for the injury complained of. This remedy the statute bars. Can the court then, by referring to the ground of the action, take the case out of the statute?" So, too, causes of action arising under acts of Congress permitting suits to be brought by importers against collectors of customs to recover duties illegally assessed, have always been treated by this court as subject to the statutes of limitations of the several States. Andreae v. Redfield, 98 U. S. 225; Barney v. Oelrichs, 138 U. S. 529. Indeed, it is only within the present century that Congress has vested exclusive jurisdiction of patent causes in the Circuit Courts, since by the act of February 21, 1793, c. 11, § 5, 1 Stat. 318, 322, it was provided that damages in patent suits might be recovered by "action on the case founded on this act, in the Circuit Court of the United States, or any other court having competent jurisdiction." This remained the law until April 17, 1800, when Congress for the first time vested exclusive jurisdiction in the Circuit Courts, but of actions at law only, act of April 17, 1800, c. 25, 2 Stat. 37; and finally by act of February 19, 1819, c. 19, 3 Stat. 481, extended the same jurisdiction to cases in equity. Even upon the theory of the plaintiffs in this case, the statutes of limitations of the States would have been a good defence so long as the jurisdiction was concurrent, but would cease to be so as soon as the jurisdiction of the Federal courts became exclusive. The bare statement of this proposition is sufficient to show its untenableness. Statement of the Case. In fine, we are all of the opinion that the statute of limitations was a good plea to this action, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is, therefore, Affirmed. MARKET STREET CABLE RAILWAY COMPANY v. ROWLEY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 161. Submitted December 13, 1894. — - Decided January 7, 1895. If, upon the state of the art as shown to exist by prior patents, and upon a comparison of older devices with the patent sued on in an action for infringement, it appears that the patented claims are not novel, it becomes the duty of the court to so instruct the jury. The claims in letters patent No. 365,754, issued June 28, 1887, to Benjamin W. Lyon and Reuben Munro for "improvements in automatic top-feed lubricators for railroad car axle-box bearings," must be construed to cover any lubricator composed of an oil cup, an outlet pipe connecting the oil cup with the axle-box containing the axle and bearing, a plug or stopper, which closes the pipe when the vehicle is at rest and opening it when there is a jolting motion, and a gauge adapted to control and limit the movement of the stopper, and to thus regulate the flow of the oil; and, being so construed, the letters patent are void for want of novelty in the invention covered by them. A mere carrying forward of the original thought, a change only in form, proportions, or degree, doing the same thing in the same way by substantially the same means, but with better results, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent. In the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, at the February term, of the year eighteen hundred and ninety-one, B. N. Rowley brought an action at law against the Market Street Cable Railway Company, a corporation under the laws of the State of California, wherein he alleged that on the 28th day of June, 1887, Benjamin W. Lyon and Reuben Munro, as inventors of an improvement in car-axle lubricators, obtained letters patent therefor, bearing said date, and numbered as No. 365,754, and that subsequently, |