78 FEDEBAIi BBPOETBB. �'easfe may, act simultaneously. It may be conceded that, in this respect, the case is near the border line. If nearer, how- ever, the prima fade right established by the letters patent (strengthened, possibly, by the respondent's tardiness in dis- covering this defence) would justify a deeree in plaintifE's favor. ���Henry ». The Feancbstown Soap-Stone Company. �{Circuit Court, D. Nei» Hampshire. January 30, 1880.} �Patent — CorfDiTioNAL Sale op Invektion — Subsequent Application. A single conditional sale of an invention, more than two years before an application, works a forfeiture of a patent. �In Equity. �Bill in equity for infringement of a patent (No. 22,787) to Porter Dodge, granted Pebruary 1, 1859, for an improved air- tight stove, made of a double course of slabs or panels of soap-stone, held together by an iron frame. The application was prepared and signed December 26, 1856; a model was filed on the next day; the application was filed February le, 1857. �In 1877, Judge Shepley entered a deeree for the complain- ant. See Henry v. Francestown Soap-Stone Co. 9 Off. Gaz. 408. In February, 1879, Judge Clark granted a rehearingof the cause upon affidavits tending to prove that Dodge had gold one of his stoves to Harvey Huntoon, and another to John H. Patch, more ihan two years before his application. Evidence was taken and the rehearing was had before Judge Lowell. �Causten Browne and Jahez S. Holmes, for defendants. �Thomas L. Livermore, for complainant. �Lowell, C. J. The evidence in the original case tended to show that Dodge made a few stoves, embodying his invention, in the autumn of 1854; that he was not fully satisfied with the iron part of the work, and caused it to be cast miorecare- ����
