Mayor v. Sikes, 94 Ga. 30 56 Mackall v. Richards, 124 U. S. 183.. 64 242 430 373 689 583 391 286 98 184 322, 325 430 373 364 430 610 170 595 347 Hammond v. State, 14 Md. 135. Harding, Ex parte, 120 U. S. 782. Harlow v. Putnam, 124 Mass. 553.. Harrison v. Hogan, 18 O. G. 921 Haseltine v. Brickey, 16 Gratt. 116. Haskins v. Wilson, 5 Wis. 106.. Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. 299. 467 Hickman . Fort Scott, 141 U. S. 415. 112 Hobbs v. McLean, 117 U. S. 567... 253 Hogenson v. Railroad Co., 31 Minn. 224 391, 392 Holden v. Trust Co., 100 U. S. 72.. 302 Horne v. Railroad Co., L. R. 8 C. P. 131 508 Horner v. United States, 143 U. S. 570 429, 430 Howard. Mfg. Co., 139 U. S. 199.. 508 Hughes v. Jackson, 12 Md. 450. 552 Humphrey v. Baker. 103 U. S. 736... 111 Hunter v. Railroad Co.. 84 Iowa 605.. 507 Huson v. Crowell & Yates, 64 0. G. 1006 Nash v. Lull, 102 Mass. 60. 609, 610 Newell v. Nichols, 75 N. Y. 78.. 22. 26 New Jersey v. Noyes, 18 Fed. Cas. 84. 279 Nishimura Ekin v. United States, 142 U. S. 651 429 Ogden v. Robertson, 15 N. J. L. 124.. 552 Owens v. Ranstead, 22 Ill. 161....... 552 (c) Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to the District of Columbia. 1798, Ch. 101, Subch. 10, Sec. 2, and Subch. 15, Sec. 17.... PAGE 230 REPORTS OF CASES ADJUDGED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. LINDEMEYR v. HOFFMAN. PATENTS; REDUCTION TO PRACTICE. 1. No actual test of the practicability of a device is needed to constitute reduction to practice, where the device is itself complete and capable of practical use; but where the device made was crude and the inventor himself testifies that he did not regard it as fit for practical use, it cannot be regarded as reduction to practice of the invention, although others made subsequently upon the same pattern were practical and successful. 2. Where, in an interference case, there is no satisfactory proof of actual reduction to practice by either party before the filing of their applications, the one who was first to conceive the invention and the first, by three days, to file his application, and so constructively reduce to practice, is entitled to an award of priority of invention. No. 156. Patent Appeals. Submitted January 11, 1901. Decided March 6, 1901. HEARING on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, in an interference case. Affirmed. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. |