Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/49

 granting the injunetion prayed for, it would be an unwarraat- able use of the power of the court to do so." The Circuit Court of Appeah said: "The question is one of fact, to be solved by a study of the evidenoe. From our exminatlon we concur in the conclusion of the Circuit Court. The large features are that appellees' book of about 60,000 names contain over 16,000 (and over '400 towns) that are not in Dun's; that of the names in com- mon only about fifteen per cent have imila- eapit4lJ rating, that of .the n,mes with similar capital ratings a large propor- tion are o.l,mified differently respecting the particular busi- nees; and that six times as re,my different classes of in- formation are given in appellees' book as in Dun's. On every page of appellees' book the names that are not given in Dun'e and the name regarding which the information does not ex- ceed or substantially vary from that given in Dun's bear the relation of three to one. These features are ocular confirma- tion of appellees' testimony regarding the long-continued, elaborate and comprehensive system of ob__iniug independent information. It is futile to claim that such a system, produe- - ing twenty-five per cent more names than Dun, and six times as many subjects of information concerning the persons named, is kept up at great expense merely as a cloak. It may be that the evidence would require a finding that with respect to a few names an improper use of Dun's book was made by an agent or correspondent of appellees. But the proportion is so imlgnificant compared with the injury from stopping appel- les' use of their enormous volume of independently acquired information, that an injunction would be unconscionable. In such eases the copyright owner should be remitted to his remedy at law. Drone on Copyright, 413; Mead v. West Pub. Co., 80 Fed. Rep. 380." We cannot, as we are asked to do by the appellants, reverse the findings of fact made by the Circuit-Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals. Successively considering t{xe same evideice, the two courts agree in the findings. In such a case in a suit

�