“The plaintiff obtained a rule upon the defendants to show cause why the costs in this suit should not be trebled. This was retorted by a rule obtained by the defendants, to show cause why the judgment should not be entered, without costs. C. J. Ingersoll and Phillips, for the plaintiff, cited the following cases in support of their own rule, and in opposition to the defendants. 1 Leon. 282. 2 Inst. 289. Carth. 294, 321. 1 L. Ray. 19. Cro. Eliz. 582. Pilford’s case, 10 Rep. 116. Sayer on Costs, 1—8, 195. They contended that though the act of congress gives the right of property in an invention or discovery, the common law gives the remedy; Beckford vs. Hood, 7 T. Rep. 620; also that the damages for a violation of the patent right, are given by the act of 1790, which are trebled by the subsequent acts, and consequently the costs ought to be trebled. Bradford and J. R. Ingersoll, for the defendants, contended, upon the authority of the cases cited on the other side, that no costs are recoverable in this case, because it is not one in which damages could be recovered at common law; the right to the thing invented, and consequently the. action for a violation of it, being the mere creatures of legislative provision 2. That the plaintiff having recovered only one cent damages, he is not only deprived of costs, but, in the discretion of the court, may be made to pay costs, by force of the twentieth section-of the judiciary act of 1789.”