Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/84

 ^2 FEDERAL ^ErORXEB. �Pullman and another v. B. & 0. E. Co. �[Uircuit Court, D. Maryland. , 1880.) �1. Patent— PiiELiMiir ART InjimcTioN— Alleged Infhinobment op Pat- ent NO. 49,992— Re-Isscb No. 6,648— Imphovembnt m Sleepino Cakb.— Preliminary injunction refused : (1) Because, upon the affl- davits produced, the court was not prepared to determine the validity of complainants' patent, or the question of the infringement ; (%) be- cause the threatened damage was not of such irreparable character as to require an injunction ; (3) because the threatened damages wer« easily ascertainable, aud ths defendant abundantly able to pay. �Steele, Stirling, Carter, Lochrane, Thurston, Dickerson, Of- field, and Lincoln, for complainants. �Lairobe, Cowen, Phillipp, Munson, Frick, and Cross, for defendant. �Bond, G. J. The bill in this case is filed by complainants to prevent the defendant company from using upon its road certain sleeping cars of its own construction, which, it is alleged, are infringements of the complainants' patent ; and, although the case bas been ably argued, as if upon final hear- ing, the motion really before us is for a preliminary inj onc- tion ^'ewdenfe lite. To show the infringement, the complain- ants have filed numerous affidavits and the sworn opinion of experts; while to show the want of novelty in the patent, and the prior use of what complainaats claim as their pat- entable combination, the defendant bas filed counter affi- davits. Upon these papers, with the bill and answer, com- plainants' af&davits in rebuttal, the motion is to be heard. In order that the court might rightly understand what is claimed as patented, and what is asserted to bave been in use before complainants' invention, we bave been provided with models of ail antecedent attempts at making sleeping cars. �Upon reading these affidavits, and the other papers in the cause, we do not feel warranted in determining any question of violation or infringement between these parties, but will confine ourselves to the motion before ua. Tha proofs shown ����