Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/613

 EIBBY BUNa MANUF'a 00. V. WHIIB. 605 �$135,000 or $150,000, instead of granting an injunction in the first instance, -which might have closed ail the mills in the north-west. If he had stopped ail of the mills by the issu- ance of an injunction simpliciter — it having been finally determined that the complainants' patent was invalid — there would have been a great wrong perpetrated upon the parties defendant. Hence, the rule is this, — and is the true rule in equity, as settled in this court by Justice Catron, and ex- isting up to the present hour, and I am authorized by Judge McCrary to say that he fully concurs, — that the function of a restraining order is to protect the plaintiff without unneces- sarily oppressing or annoying the defendant. Whether re- straining orders go ont in patent cases, or in other cases, they are framed according to the circumstances of each case, to-wit: In one case there may be such circumstances as require an injunction simjjliciter, but ordinarily a bond and order for accounting sufGces, and sometimes simply an order for an accounting. Hence, the form of the order varies with the circumstances. I make these preliminary remarks so that parties may understand that an injunction simpliciter is not to be had for the asking. I am very well aware that the practice under the state laws is different, if it now is the same as years ago. Under the state practice there is but one form of a restraining order, to-wit : If an injunction is asked for provisionally, it must issue as an injunction simpliciter, This is not the rule in equity, and has never been the rule in the courts of this circuit. The course in these preliminary matters is to protect the complainant without unnecessarily injuring the defendant. �There is a patent presented to the court for a bung-cutting machine. It is a combination patent, and a very commendable patent in itself. The varions deviees work automatieally to effect the desired end. This patent has been before the cir- cuit court of the United States for the district of Indiana, and a decree was ordered by Judge Drummond in favor of the complainant; and not being familiar with the facts of that case we take it for granted — as the law requires — that it was a correct decree, upholding the validity of the patent. ��� �