
    RICHARD T. TALBERT, ADMINISTRATOR, v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [25 C. Cls. R., 141; 155 U. S. R., 45.]
    
      On both parties' Appeals.
    
    A ship carpenter for his own private yard invents an improvement in marine railways. Before applying for a patent he goes into the Government service. While he is procuring a patent, the chief of a bureau orders the construction of the appliance with an agreement that if successful he shall receive for its use “ outside prices;” if not, he shall pay for the trial. The device is used for many years. Congress pass an act conferring jurisdiction and directing the court to award judgment “according to Us value to the Government.”
    
    The court below decides:
    1. Where an invention is adopted by the Government with the inventor’s consent, and with knowledge that he intends to take out a patent, and with the understanding that if it succeeds he shall be paid a royalty, a contract may be implied.
    2. Where an invention is made before the inventor enters the service of the Government, and is adopted by the proper officers with the understanding that a patent will be taken out and compensation shall be paid, the case is distinguishable from Solomons (22 C. Cls. E., 342) and an action may be maintained.
    3. Where an inventor consents to the use of his device before a patent has been applied for, but coupled with a condition that he shall be paid for it when patented, the defendant does not acquire an implied license nor a right to gratuitous use under the Revised Statutes, § 4899.
    4. Talbert’s device of movable blocks running on a marine railway so arranged that they can be bunched at its lower end, is a distinct device from Turnbull’s, where the cradle of the railway is cut into sections.
    
      5. An act confers jurisdiction of a patent case and directs the conrt “to award judgment thereon as the merits of the ease may demand according to its value to the Government.” The measure of damages intended is the value of the invention as such inventions are usually paid for by ordinary manufacturers.
    The decision of the court below is affirmed on the ground that, as there were no questions of law presented in the record, the court would not go behind the findings of fact of the court below.
   The Chief Justice

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, October 15, 1894.  