pletely united. The copper wire is then eaten out by an acid, and the tubing is complete. Both the product and process have long been well known. And so have been spiral rings formed of gold tubing. The tubing, before the wire is removed, is wound into coils around a mandrel, and cut into desired lengths. The coils may then be pressed together by a wire and annealed, the wire having been removed, or the compressing and annealing process may be omitted. Such spirals have a certain degree of elasticity, which enables them to be sprung upon other links, and when thus sprung into other closed or open spirals they will form a chain. The well-known serpent bracelet was such an open spiral, such a double link, and several of them, sprung together alternately with closed links, would have formed a chain identical in principle with that of the patentee. There certainly is nothing patentable in merely reducing the size of the bracelet so as to adapt it to use in a necklace. The record also contains evidence that other spiral rings or links made of gold tubing, some of them open and some closed, by soldering, were made before 1873. It is to be observed that the second claim in the patent is not for any process of making a link; not for making tubing, or winding it into spiral forms; not for tying or annealing the coils when they have been wound: but for an open link, consisting of one or more coils of tubing of the proper length, so as to form a double spring link, into each end of which is soldered a small shot to give the link a finish. This is all the description the specification gives of the link. It is not intimated that the coils must be brought into close contact with each other, or annealed, and it is simply said the links may be colored or polished. The form of the link, when made of gold tubing, is all that is attempted to be patented. The constituents are not. The patentee has testified that as long as he had known anything about the manufacture of jewelry he had known tubing to be used in the art; that for many years he had known shot put into the ends of such tubing, and that for a number of years he had known links formed of tubing with shotted ends. We think, therefore, the evidence sufficiently establishes that the second claim is void for want of novelty in the alleged invention.

The first claim read in connection with the description given in the specification and drawings is for an ornamental chain, consisting of solid links and open spiral links made of tubing, the latter being finished before they are sprung into the solid links, and the connection being made by thus springing the links together. In considering whether this can be sustained, it is necessary to observe what was the state of the art, and what was known when Cottle claims to have invented the device for which he obtained the patent. Chains having alternate open and closed links, the open links being spiral and sprung into the closed links, were known. So were chains. made entirely of spiral links, and even of open spiral links. A chain had also been made and worn, and it was for sale in the stores, the links of which were hollow. They were made solid, with copper wire inside. The copper wire was then destroyed, leaving the links hollow, and they were then sprung together to form a chain. The chain was thus composed of open spiral links made of hollow metal; that is, of tubing. It is true, as appears from the model which is an exhibit in the case, the two ends of the spiral were bent outward and the coils were soldered together after the links had been sprung into each other. Still, when thus sprung into each other, they made a chain formed of open spiral links of tubing. The soldering was a distinct and after process. Omitting that process and the outward deflection of the ends, and alternating the links with other links made closed and solid, the chain would have been substantially the same as that of the complainants. We cannot think the advance which the patentee made upon that can be called invention. Leaving the links open after they have been sprung into closed links, there being no novelty in the links themselves, cannot be patentable. It is nothing more than the exercise of ordinary mechanical skill. If in one of the complainants' chains, after the links had been joined, a person should solder the spirals together or to the closed rings, it could hardly be maintained that a new chain had been invented. Or if, when thus soldered, the soldering should be removed, the change would not deserve to be regarded as a product of invention. Yet this is substantially what the patentee has done. His chain may have been an improve

ment on the chains that preceded it. In some particulars it doubtless was. It left the elasticity of the spiral gold tubing more free by releasing the link from the attachment of the soldering, and it enabled the chain to be freely taken in pieces without injury to its structure. But all improvement is not invention, and entitled to protection as such. Thus to entitle it, it must be the product of some exercise of the inventive faculties, and it must involve something more than what is obvious to persons skilled in the art to which it relates.

In this case neither the tubing, nor the open spiral link formed of tubing, nor the process of making either the open or the closed link, nor the junction of closed and open spiral links in a chain, was invented by the patentee. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the first claim of the patent, even if not void for want of novelty, is void for want of patentability.

The decree of the Circuit Court will therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the bill.

So ordered.

SCHOONMAKER v. GILMORE.

The courts of the United States, as courts of admiralty, have not exclusive jurisdiction of suits in personam, growing out of collisions between vessels while navigating the Ohio River.

MOTION to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania, to which is united a motion to affirm.

This was an action on the case, brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, by Gilmore against Schoonmaker & Brown, owners of the steam-tug "Jos. Bigley." The declaration avers in substance that, by reason of the negligence of the defendants, the tug, when descending the Ohio River, a few miles below Pittsburgh, collided with and damaged certain barges belonging to the plaintiff.

The point was made by the defendants that the courts of the United States have exclusive jurisdiction in cases of collision on navigable waters.

There was a judgment for the plaintiff, on the affirmance of which by the Supreme Court the defendants sued out this writ.

Mr. Alexander M. Watson in support of the motions.

Mr. Hill Burgwin, contra.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the

court.

The single question in this case is, whether the courts of the United States, as courts of admiralty, have exclusive jurisdiction of suits in personam, growing out of collisions between vessels while navigating the Ohio River. This is a Federal question, and gives us jurisdiction; but we cannot consider it as any longer open to argument, as it was decided substantially in The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411; The Hine v. Trevor, id. 555; The Belfast, 7 id. 624; Leon v. Galceran, 11 id. 185; and Steamboat Company v. Chase, 16 id. 522. The Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 73, sect. 9), reproduced in sect. 563, Rev. Stat., par. 8, which confers admiralty jurisdiction on the courts of the United States, expressly saves to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it. That there always has been a remedy at common law for damages by collision at sea cannot be denied.

The motion to dismiss is overruled, and that to affirm granted. Judgment affirmed.

NOTE. - Brown v. Davidson, error to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania, involved the same question as the preceding case. It was submitted by the same counsel and determined in the same manner.

RAILWAY COMPANY v. HECK.

Neither the charge of the court below, if no exception was taken thereto before the final submission of the case to the jury, nor the granting or the refusing a new trial, is subject to review here.

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. E. Walker for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. 0. B. Sansum, contra.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. It does not appear from this record that any exceptions were taken in the progress of the trial to what was done by the court below. Nearly three weeks after the trial was concluded and a verdict rendered, a motion was made for a new trial, because of certain alleged errors in the charge; but it is nowhere shown that they were noted or brought to the attention of the court before the verdict. Certainly no exceptions were taken. A trial court may, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, grant a new trial, if convinced that its charge was wrong, even though its attention was not called to the error complained of before the case was finally submitted to the jury. But not so with us. Our power is confined to exceptions actually taken at the trial. The theory of a bill of exceptions is that it states what occurred while the trial was going on. Time is usually given to put what was done into an appropriate form for the record; but, unless objection was made and exception taken before the verdict, no case is presented for a review here of the rulings at the trial. This has been settled in this court since Walton v. United States, 9 Wheat. 651. The cases are numerous to that effect.

We have uniformly held that, as a motion for new trial in the courts of the United States is addressed to the discretion of the court that tried the cause, the action of that court in granting or refusing to grant such a motion cannot be assigned for error here. Schuchardt v. Allens, 1 Wall. 359; Insurance Company v. Barton, 13 id. 603.

Judgment affirmed.