Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/460

 446 7edebal sbpobter. �Union Metallic Caethidgb Co. v. United States Cabteidgb Co. �(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. July2, 1881.) �1. Damages— Pkopits Accruing between Intehlocutory and Final Decbeb. Motion to recommit cause to master fOr statement of profits, to date of final decree, on machines enjoined subseq.uent to interlocutory decree, denied. �In Equity. �Browne, Holmes e Browne and Wetmore, Jenner & Thompson, for complainant. �B. F. Butler, for defendants. �Lowell, C. J. After a final decree has been ordered, and after an appeal bas been claimed, the complainants move to recommit the case to the master for a further. statement of profits, to bring the account down to the time of the final injunction and decree. The master's account is made up to April 23, 1877, and there are reasons of some validity for the omission of the complainants to move in the matter sooner. Some of the machines which the defendant has been using since April, 1877, being those coneerning which the account is asked, were excepted by Judge Shepley frbm the operation of the interlocu- tory injunction, and aire now enjoined by me upon evidence produced since the first decree was made. As a matter of convenience and economy it is often desirable to have the account taken as late as pos- sible, to save further litigatioii. In this case there are many litigated questions upon which the supreme court must decide, and in my opinion the preponderance of convenience is against opening the case at this time, if I have power to open it, because such a course would, in all probability, postpone the appeal for a year, and there has al- ready been more than enough delay. �The decree may be so drawn as to show that the decree is for prof- its to April 23, 1S77, and that it is to be without prejudice to any claim for profits and damages for later infringement, though I sup- pose that -would be the neeessary intendment. �Petition to recommit denied. ��� �