Birdie (The).. v. Haight. Bonesteel (In re)... 238 E Bliss v. Gaylord Manufacturing Co. 279 Elizabeth English (The).. (Voorhies v.). Braunsdorf (Potter v.).... (Singer v.). Bridgeport (The)... ...... 180 C Campbell (Farrell v.). . 158 Cayuga (The).... 385 Chamberlain (Gladstone v.).. 207 Chase (Bowen v.)....... G 255 Gaylord Manufacturing Co.(Bliss v.) 279 Gladstone v. Chamberlain....... 207 | Mullee (In re).. 23 513 Mynderse (United States v.).............. 483 Hulburd (Van Antwerp v.)................... 426 | Oakman (Sawyer v.). I Ogden (Coffin v.).. .... 290 61 Loon (The)... L Santee (The)..... S 1 Sargent (Rogers v. ).. 249 .... 244 .... Sawyer v. Oakman. Scotia (The). 186 507 290 308 Lovejoy (Shaw & Wilcox Co. v.).. 232 Shaw & Wilcox Co. v. Lovejoy... 232 CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE SECOND CIRCUIT. ROBERT T. LIDDLE vs. UZAL CORY AND WILLIAM D. CORY. IN EQUITY. Where an injunction, restraining the infringement of a patent, was issued on a final decree in a suit in equity, and a motion was afterwards made for an attachment against the defendant, for violating the injunction by selling an article alleged to be an infringement of the patent, and it appeared that no such article had been sold by the defendant prior to the making of the decree, and it did not appear that such an article existed before the making of the decree, and an issue was fairly raised, on the facts, as to whether such article was an infringement of the patent: Held, that such issue could not be disposed of on a motion, on affidavits, but must be determined in a suit brought for the purpose. Held, also, that the case was not a proper one in which to direct proofs to be taken before a Master. (Before BENEDICT, J., Southern District of New York, October 16th, 1865.) THIS was a motion for an attachment against the defendants for violating an injunction issued upon a final decree, in a suit brought for the infringement of letters patent, granted to the plaintiff, for an improvement in air-heating furnaces. After the issuing of the injunction, the defendants sold and caused to be erected, a furnace, which they called VOL. VII.-1 |