MYBRB V. CAIiLAGHAN. 735 �fiSô decided ad be ought to have been, it ninst be als6 said that there was a gooddeal in the talk,:aiid in. the declara- tions of the defendants, which seemed to concede the rights olaimed by'the plaintiff, those of copyright àfaiong others; and in such a case as this, where there is.a questioà of aban- donment of a clear legal right once existing, acquiescence, of laches, the testimony ought to be reasonably conclusive of the fact before a court of eqnity would deprire a party of bis rights under the law. I do not think that testimony exists in this case, and therefore I hold that there was not that con« sent giyen by the plaintiff, or that abandonment of bis rights, or acquiescence, or laches, which are claimed by the defend- ants. �The only other defence is that of the bankruptcy of the the plaintiff. The answer made to that, and which seems tô be satisfactory, is that until there is an assignee appointed of the baiJimpt's estate he bas the right to pursue all proper legal measures for the protection of bis interests. So that on the whole I think that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in this case. �nSCBEE. �This canse coming on for final hearing on the bill, an- swers, and testimony, and the court being fuUy advised, finds : �That the complainant is the owner of the copyright or exclusive right of publication of the volumes described in said bill of complaint, and known as volumes thirty-two, (32^) thirty-three, (33,) thirty-four, (34,) tbirty-five, (35,) thirty-six, (36,) tbirty-seven, (37,) and thirty-eight (38.) of the niinoie Eeports. �That said defendants Bernard Callagban, Andrew Calla- ghan, Andrew P. Callaghan, Sheldon A. Clark, violated said copyright of said complainant, and to said volumes 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38, by publishing, offering for sale, and selling copies thereof, and the said Marshall D. Ewell and Y. B. Denslow in editing the same. �Wherefore, it is ordered and decreed that all said defend- ����
