Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/500

 ■188 FBDEBAL REPORTER. �the cause was finally presented to the court upon the evidence submitted, with elaborate arguments by respective counsel. Ample opportunity had been given to the parties and counsel, and, now that a decree bas been ordered, if the case is to be opened, new pleadings introduced, with the necessary delay as to the taking of evidence thereunder, the probability is that the patent will, in the meantime, have expired. The patent in question bas only one year to run, which, if wasted in litigation, leaves the patentee no direct benefit from its existence, but remits him only to profits, damages, etc., re- coverable from the infringers. �This court bas already passed upon the main issues as made by the pleadings and evidence, and there is no sufficient ground for the motion to rehear or open the case in order to let in new pleadings, etc. The motion for rehearing is over- ruled. �There is another motion calling for grave consideration, viz., to suspend the injunction ordered after a fuU hear- ing, 80 that the defendants may not have their business de- stroyed pending the account with a view to a final decree, from which decree they intend an appeal with a supersedeaa. They now offer to give a bond in any sum the court may name if a suspension of the injunction order is granted until the case has ripened into a final decree from which an appeal ean be had. �The grounds of the motion are substantially that, before the hearing and decree of the court, defendants had entered into a large number of contracts to furnish their corn-plant- ers to agriculturists in several etates, and that there is not adequate time for them to reconstruct their machines so as to avoid the infringement as found without disappointing their customers, and fastening upon themselves large dam- ages for non-fulfilment of their many contracts. �The first inquiry relates to the power of the court to grant the motion. It must be remembered that, after a full hear- ing on the merits, it has been decided that defendants are infringers, and ail that remains for a final decree is the ascer- tainment of the sum of money to which defendants shall re- ��� �