Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/86

 HENBT V. FEANOESTOWR flOAP-BTOHE 00. 19 �f uUy ; and that he did not Bell his stovea generally and ei- tensively in the market until within two years before Febru- ary 14, 1857, when Lis application was filed, but that he did Bell the fltoves whioh he then had, or some of them, in De- cember, 1854, or January, 1855. Judge Shepley said (9 Off. Gaz. 409:) "There is but one sale clearly proved before February 14, 1855, and no evidence tending to show more than two or three sales before that time, and ail of them aocompanied with a notice of an intention to apply for a pat- ent, and ail of these during the time he was experimenting upon and before he had perfected his invention, and attained Bufficient perfection in the eastings to satisfy himself that his invention was practically successful. As in most, if not ail, of these instances, the stoves were delivered on trial, to be returned if the invention did not work satisfactorily, they are to be regarded rather in the light of such practical tests as the law permits an inventor to make, than as such public sales as would tend to show abandonment, or mislead the public into a belief that the inventor had made a dedication to the public," �TJpon the rehearing two more sales of stoves, one to Hun- toon, and one to Patch, are proved to have been made by Dodge more than two years before February 14, 1857; but in that sold to Huntoon the inner panels of soap-stone ap- pear to bave been made of the full length of the frame, while the patent describes them as being eut shorter to allow for expansion upward. The defendants have introduced evidence that there is no noed of shortening the inner lining, because soap-stone does not expand upward; and the plaintiff bas evidence that it does or may expand in that direction. How- ever this fact may be, this stove appeq,rs to have been made in what Dodge thought an imperfect form, and, therefore, may be held not a sale of the invention. Draper v. Wattles, 16 Off. Gaz. 629. �The inventor is dead, and the terms and particulars of the sale of the Patch stove are not proved; and I think it possi- ble that, if the new evidence had been before Judge Shep- ����