
    CADMAN v. HUDSON.
    (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted March 22, 1921.
    Decided May 2, 1921.)
    No. 1413.
    Patents (3) - — Facts Jichi to show due diligence by prior inventor in reduction to practice.
    Evidence that the prior inventor disclosed the Invention by drawings made prior to July, which were checked over during August, and that on September 29 of the same year he ordered a model constructed, which was proihply built, shows due diligence by the prior inventor in reducing to practice.
    <2^5>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
    Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
    Interference proceeding between Adcli Benjamin Cadman and Warren R. Hudson. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, awarding priority to Hudson, Cadman appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Lincoln B. Smith, of Chicago, 111., for appellant.
    H. A. Touknin and H. A. Touimin, Jr., both of Dayton, Ohio, for appellee.
   VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

This appeal is by the senior party, Cadman, from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents awarding priority of invention to the appellee, Pludson. The invention relates to steering mechanism for four-wheel trailers for auto trucks. It is conceded Hudson was the first to conceive the invention. We think the evidence discloses, as held by the Commissioner and the Board of Examiners, that Cadman reduced to practice about the middle of November, 1916, and that the Hudson reduction occurred a few weeks later. The case turns upon the question of Hudson’s diligence when Cadman entered the field.

The date of conception accorded Cadman, August 31, 1916, is supported by the testimony. Pludson'discloses drawings illustrating the invention, which were made prior to July, 1916. Work was done in checking over these drawings during August, and, on September 29, 1916, Pludson ordered a trailer constructed. A trailer was promptly built in accordance with the drawings. On this showing, which is fully supported by the record, we find no basis for the charge of lack of diligence on the part of Hudson.

The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice PIITZ, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sat in the place of Mr. Justice ROBB in the hearing and determination of this appeal.  