Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/699

 684 PEDEBAL BBPOETBB. �plaintiff and the defendant, on the basis of which partnersliip and ■which relation the plaintiff can maintain this suit to obtain an accounting by the defendant as to his dealings and transactions respeeting the property in question from the commencement. The bill prays for such an accounting. It cannot be had on affidavits, on» an interlocutory motion. It must be had in the orderly progress of a suit. I am not prepared to hold now that the suit is barred by the two years' statute of limitations. On the foregoing basis, the case made by the bill is not satisfactorily refuted by the defendant. If the threatened sale of stock takes place, the injury to resuit to the plaintiff from the sale cannot be remedied. In such a case a tempo- rary injunction is granted. U. S. v. Duluth, 1 Dillon, 469, 474. The defendant bas ifi his ha,nd8 the mine and all the property, and the effeet of the injunction is only to prevent him from changing the status of the plaintiff in respect to the property while the suit is pending. The injunction contained in the order of May 31, 1881, will be continued. ���United States v. Mills. {Circuit Court, W. D. Wisconsin. 1881.) �1 GOVETINMHNT LAKDS— IlTNOCENT TbBSPASSETI. �It is a good defence to an action of trover against an Innocent treapassei upon government lands, for the value of timber eut by him therefrom, that he afterwards entered the land from the government, paid the price thereforand the costs up to the time of entry. 2. Me\sure of Damases. �When a wilful trespasser cuts and rem oves timber and couverts it into logs ties, or piles, the raeasure of damages is the market value of the latter, in cash, at the time and place of their sale and delivery, and not the value of the stump- age merely. �Thiswas an action of trover brought in the above court by the United States against the defendant to recover the value of a quan- tity of pine timber alleged to have been eut and removed from lands of the United States by the defendant. The case was tried at the special December term, 1881, of said court, at Madison, before Bunn, D. J., and a jury, �H. M. Lewis, U. S. Atty., and J. M. Bingham, for the United States. �E. E. Bryant and J. M. Morrow, for defendant. ��� �