BEOWN V. DEBBE. 487 �Brown V. Deeee, Manstjb & Co. �{Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. Febraary fi, 1881.) �1. Ikpbingbment— Suspension of Inteklocutort Deceee— Poweh op �CODET. �The suspension of an Interlocutory decree, perpetually enjoining the infringement of a patent, until an accounting can be had and a decree entered from which an appeal can be taken, resta in the dis- cretion of the court which granted the decree. �2. Same— Same — Same. �In the exercise of such discretion the court should look careftilly to ail the facts and eircumstances involved, regarding the difference bo- tween royalties, licenses, and patent monopolies. �S. Motion OvEBRDLED. �Motion to suspend the interlocutory decree for a perpetuai injuno- tion overruled under the eircumstances of this case.— [Ed. �George Hardwg and Jokn R. Bennett, for plaintiff. �West d Bond and S. S. Boxjd, for defendants. �Tbeat, D. J. On the hearing of this cause upon the mer- ita, it -was decided that the plaintiff 's patent was valid, and that the defendants had infringed the same.* A motion for rehearing is now presentee! substantially on the ground that tue defendants have diseovered since said hearing proofs of prior use and anticipations of plaintiff's patent, invalidating the same. The motion looks to setting aside the decree and per- mitting an amended answer to he filed, in which the newly-dis- covered matter may be interposed. To that motion there are valid objections: First. Under the rules governing such cases, the time within which such defences can be presented is pre- scribed by law. No adequate excuse is given for the non-pres- entation of the alleged defences within the prescribed time. Second. So far as the motion and accompanying affidavits disclose, there is no adequate reason, even if the supposed new matter had been presentai? in time for changing the �decree. �The parties in this case had been at issue for about two years, and, after mutual indulgence as to the date of hearing,
- See supra, 484.
��� �
