Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/746

 734 FEDERAL REPORTER. �original sources of information, to the decisions of the court, the briefs of eounsel, the records on file in the clerk's office, -without regard to the regular volumes of reports. Any one who has tried it can easily understand the difference between the head-notes of two persons, equally good lawyers, and equally critical in the examination of an opinion, where they are made up independent of each other; and, bearing in mind this fact, it seems to be beyond controversy that, although in many, and perhaps most, instances there is a very consider- able difference between the head-notes of the defendants' vol- umes and those of the plaintiff, the latter have been used in the preparation of those of the former. I coiiclude, there- fore, that the defendants have, in the preparation of those volumes from 32 to 38, inclusive, of the Illinois Eeports, used the volumes of the plaintiff so a^ to interfere with his copy- right. �When this Mil was filed an application was made to the district judge for an injunction against the defendants. That was refused, and I am inolined to think properly refused. There is, no doubt, considerable testimony in this case to show that the plaintiff did not insist so sharply upon his rights under the law as he should have done during the vari- ous interviews which took place when negotiations were pend- ing between the parties for the sale of the plaintiff's right to these volumes to the defendants. There is some confliet in the evidence, but, taking it ail together, there cannot be said to have been any consent on the part of the plaintiff to the publication made by the defendants. On the contrary, it would seem as though his conduct showed that he never in- tended absolutely to abandon what he considered his legal rights, under the law, to the publication of these volumes of reports. He in fact published some of them, and gave notice of the publication of others. This shows that he had no in- tention to abandon his rights. Perhaps an explanation of some expressions used by the plaintiff, and of his conduct, may be found in the supposition that they would come to terms, and that he would sell and they would buy what- ever rights he had. But, admitting that the plaintiff was not ����