the suit to a hearing, and will be entitled to the costs of it. Where, on the injunction being obtained, the plaintiff gives an undertaking to bring an action, and that action fails and the Bill is dismissed with costs, the defendant's costs of opposing the motion for the injunction are costs in the cause. If the plaintiff dismiss his Bill, the defendant, though a pauper, is entitled to dives costs." Where, however, the Bill becomes nugatory from events subsequent to its filing, the Court may dismiss it without costs." From the language of Lord Cottenham in Bacon v. The hearing. Spottiswoode it appears that a plaintiff at the hearing of the cause is expected to have already obtained the decision of a Court of Law upon the points at issue between him and the defendant. It is, however, to be remarked, that in the case alluded to the Bill was filed in October, 1835, and that the hearing was not until May, 1839. In adducing the cases of some standing in the Court, it is to be noticed, that the recent changes in the increase of judicial power has rendered the proceedings more speedy. If an injunction until further order have been obtained on motion, the Court may, at the hearing, refuse to make it perpetual, if not satisfied on any point. It may retain the Bill for a limited period, giving the plaintiff liberty to bring such action as he may be advised, continuing the injunction in the mean time." If no interlocutory application have been made, the Court, if in doubt, may, as in Rodgers v. Nowill, give the defendants the option Geary v. Norton (1846), V. C., shawl, 1 De G. & S. 9; Frudella v. Weller (1831), M. R., 2 R. & My. 247. 1 Stevens v. Keating (1850), L. C., 1 MN. & G. 659. m Rubery v. Morris (1849), L. C., 16 Sim. 433. "Sutton Harbour Improvement Company v. Hitchens (1852), M. R., Breach of injunction. Contempt of Court. Practice. Injunction operates from time of being pronounced. of having the Bill dismissed against them without costs or of having the right tried at Law. The defendants in that case declined the former alternative. The Bill was ordered to be retained for a year, with liberty to the plaintiffs to bring an action. Disregard of an injunction is a contempt of Court, punishable by attachment and imprisonment. The usual mode of purging such contempt is by payment of the costs of the adverse party. In the case of corporations aggregate or persons entitled to the privilege of Parliament, a sequestration will be ordered on breach of an injunction. If the party enjoined be not a corporation or person entitled to the privilege of Parliament, the usual course is to serve upon him, personally if possible," a notice of motion that he shall stand committed. It is not the practice to move that he shows cause why he should not be committed. Where the breach of the injunction has arisen from error or mistake, or if there have been acquiescence or neglect on the part of the plaintiff, the Court will not commit. An injunction improperly obtained cannot be disobeyed with impunity." The proper course is to move to discharge it for irregularity.c The injunction becomes operative from the time of the order for the issue of the writ being pronounced, and not Hindm. 306; Dan. Ch. Pr. 1550. Partington v. Booth (1817), L. C., 3 Mer. 149. "Durant v. Moore (1830), L. C., 2 R. & My. 33; Pearce v. Crutchfield (1807), L. C., 14 Ves. 206. × Ellerton v. Thirsk (1820), L. C., 1 J. & W. 376. y Angerstein v. Hunt (1801), L. C., 6 Ves. 488. Devonshire v. Sandys (1801), L. C., 6 Ves. 107. Mills v. Cobby (1815), L. C., 1 Mer. 3. See Rodgers v. Nowill (1852), L. J., trademark, 22 L. J. 404. b Devonshire v. Sandys (1801), L. C., 6 Ves. 107. c Robinson v. Byron (1788), L. C., 2 Dick. 703; Partington v Booth (1817), L. C., 3 Mer. 149. from the date of its sealing and being issued. The plaintiff must not be guilty of unnecessary delay, either in getting the order drawn up or serving it on the defendant, or a motion to commit will be refused with costs.d In the event of its appearing to the Court that the Service. party enjoined is endeavouring to evade the personal service of the writ, it will allow service at the last place of abode or on the wife of the defendant. If, indeed, the presumption is strong that the parties are apprised of the order, the Court will commit them, notwithstanding there has been no formal service of the injunction." If the matter be urgent, a copy of the minutes of the order, or a notice of its having been passed, will subject the party enjoined to the effect of the injunction." With regard to costs after an offer of compensation Offer of comby the defendants for their infringement, the observations pensation. of Lord Cottenham in Millington v. Foxi are important. the parties there were perfectly unconscious that they had committed a wrong by the use of the plaintiffs' trademark. His Lordship, after saying that the plaintiffs were entitled to their decree, adds, that this abstract right of the plaintiff was not the only right he had to guard. There was another object which the Court must keep in view, that of repressing unnecessary litigation, of keeping litigation within the bounds essential to the esta d James v. Downes (1811), L. C., 18 Ves. 522. e Pearce v. Crutchfield (1807), L. C., 14 Ves. 206. f Pulteney v. Shelton (1799), L. C., 5 Ves. 147. * Anon. (1747), 3 Atk. 567; Skip v. Harwood (1747), 3 Atk. 564; Powell v. Tollett, ibid.; M'Neil v. Garrett (1841), L. C., Cr. & Ph. 99; Ellerton v. Thirsk (1820), L. C., 1 J. & W. 376; Scott v. Becker (1817), Eq. Exch., 4 Pr. 346; Hearn v. Tennant (1807), L. C., 14 Ves. 136; James v. Downes (1811), L. C., 18 Ves. 522; Kimpton v. Eve (1813), L. C., 2 V. & B. 349. h Dan. Ch. Pr. 1547. i (Trademarks) 3 My. & Cr. 353; Colburn v. Simms (1843), V. C., copyright, 2 Hare, 561. Account. Must be com blishment and vindication of the rights of the parties. In Kelly v. Hooperk the only question was, up to what point the plaintiff was justified in prosecuting his suit. Besides asking for an injunction, the Bill usually prays for an account' of the profits made by the defendant from the use of the invention." Where the title to the exclusive use of the invention is in dispute, a very usual course is to refuse an injunction until the Court is satisfied as to the title, directing the defendant in the mean time to keep such an account." Such account, it is evident, is in many cases a very inexact mode of measuring the loss sustained by the Patentee. In some, however, it is the nearest approximation to justice that can be made. It is, in general, incident to the injunction, and to obtain it the plaintiff must establish a case which would entitle him to an injunction." The account rendered must be complete. It is not plete and clear. sufficient to render the plaintiff the account books, and leave him to deduce from them the information he seeks." The defendant must himself examine the books and make out a reasonable account, referring to the books for verification in details.s (1841) V. C, copyright, 1 Yo. & Coll. C. C. 197; Whittingham v. Wooler (1817), M. R., copyright, 2 Swanst. 428. As to the jurisdiction of equity in matters of account, see 1 Fonb. Eq. 13, n.; Jesus College v. Bloome, 3 Atk. 262; Piers v. Piers, 1 Ves. 521; Lee v. Alston, 1 Bro. C. C. 194; 3 Bro. C. C 37. m Dan. Ch. Pr. 2nd Ed. 1500. n Bridson v. M'Alpine (1845), M. R., 8 Beav. 229; Hill v. Thompson (1817), L. C., iron, 3 Mer. 628. See the remarks of the Vice-Chancellor in Colburn v. Simms (1843), copyright, 2 Hare, 260. P Parrott v. Palmer (1834), L. C., 3 My. & K. 633; but see Sheriff v. Coates (1830), L. C., 1 K. & M. 159; 18 Jur. pt. 2, p. 185. Baily v. Taylor (1829), M. R., copyright, 1 R. & M. 73. See as to notice of wrong doing in general, Attorney-General v. East Retford (1833), M. R., 2 M. & K. 35. Wigram on Discovery, s. 283; White v. Williams (1803), L. C. 8 Ves. 193. CHAPTER XI. NOTICES OF FOREIGN LAW. nexion with tents. By a before-mentioned provision of the Patent Law of Foreign Pa1852, the conditions attached by foreign states to the tents, in congrants of special trade privileges in the nature of Letters- English Papatent for inventions enter as an element into English Law. Where the subject-matter of an English Patent has, previously to the grant, been patented in a foreign state, the English Patent is to become void on the expiration of such foreign Patent. Two cases of exception, Excepted cases. however, are made to this rule. The subject-matter must have been "first invented" abroad or by the subject of a foreign state. It may therefore be inferred that those inventions would be excepted which can be shown to have been perfected, although not published, in this country previous to the foreign grant, or which, if first patented abroad, were the inventions of British subjects. The section in question enacts as follows:- "Where upon any application made after the passing of this Act Letters-patent are granted in the United Kingdom for or in respect of any invention first invented in any foreign country, or by the subject of any foreign power or state, and a Patent or like privilege for the monopoly or exclusive use or exercise of such invention in any foreign country is there obtained before the grant of such Letters-patent in the United Kingdom, all rights and privileges under such Letters-patent shall (notwithstanding any term in such Letters-patent limited) cease and be void immediately upon the expiration or other determination of the term during which the Patent or like privilege obtained in such foreign country shall continue in force; or where more than one such Patent or like Stat. 15 & 16 Vict. c. 83, s. 25. |