issued by the United States to said complainant, for each and all of the following publications, to wit:

A book entitled "Circular of Information of the International Correspondence Schools. A System of Home Study in Mechanics and Mechanical Drawing." Here were inserted the titles of the books and drawing plates.

And that said complainant is now the proprietor of each and all of said copyrights and of the sole liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing, completing, copying, executing, finishing and vending said publications and each of them.

And it being also set forth in said bill, that you, the said defendants, have printed, published and sold, and caused to be printed, published, distributed and sold within the United States, books and drawing plates, infringing said copyrights and each of them; being particularly the books and drawing plates entitled as follows, to wit:

Books entitled "A College Education by Mail. The United Correspondence Schools, New York. Home School of Mechanical Engineering. A Thorough System of Home Study in Mathematics, Mechanical Drawing, Mechanics, Electricity."

Books entitled "The United Correspondence Schools."

[Here were inserted the title of other books and drawing plates.]

And also that you, the said defendants, have unfairly competed with the said complainant in business by imitating and causing the imitation of the said publications of the complainant, and particularly in the construction, arrangement and printing of said infringing publications and each of them.

And that your aforesaid acts and doings are contrary to equity and good conscience.

WE, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and the same appearing to us to be true, Do Strictly And Fully Command And Enjoin You, the said Fred W. Ewald, Charles W. Ackerman, Adolf Weiser, John Doe and Richard Roe, late doing business as F. W. Ewald & Co., The United Correspondence Schools Co., Louis Stettiner, Martin Stettiner and Julius M. Stettiner, doing business as Stettiner Bros., the defendants, and your and each of your servants, agents, attorneys, workmen, employees, and confederates, and each and every of you, under the pains and penalties that may fall on you in case of disobedience, that you and each and every of you do henceforth altogether, absolutely and entirely, desist and refrain from, directly and indirectly, publishing, printing, selling or exposing for sale, or otherwise disposing of or giving away or causing or being in any way concerned in publishing, selling or exposing for sale or otherwise disposing of or giving away the books, sheets, papers or documents hereinbefore referred to, or any books, sheets or other papers or documents infringing or containing said copyrights or either of them, or any part thereof, or like or similar to those hereinbefore set forth, and from in any way infringing said copyrights or the rights of the complainant under the

same.

Witness the Honorable [Learned Hand, United States District Judge]

at the City of New York in said district, this 8th day of January in the year one thousand nine hundred and two.

[SEAL]

GIFFORD & BULL,

[ALEX. GILCHRIST, JR.],

Clerk of the [District] Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Solicitors for the complainant.

FORM XLIII.-WRIT OF INJUNCTION AGAINST STRIKERS. [From Loewe v. California State Federation of Labor, 139 Fed. 71, 85, 86.] United States of America, Northern District of California—ss. The President of the United States of America, to California State Federation of Labor, San Francisco Labor Council, Harry Knox, T. F. Gallagher, Nicholas Blum, Daniel D. Sullivan, J. R. Hillis, C. W. Holmquist, J. C. Templeton, John Guinne, Frank J. Bonnington, G. K. Smith, Will J. French, A. C. Rose, Russel I. Wisler, P. H. Coyle, J. A. Johnson, Richard Cornelius, Sarah Hogan, Charles T. Shuppert, J. L. Franklin, Theodore Johnson, G. M. Lipman, Wm. P. McCabe, George Metzger, A. Burton, J. E. Hooper, A. S. Howe, Joseph Moran, Annie Mullen, O. E. Pierce, T. E. Zant, J. R. Roland, their and each of their, attorneys, agents, employees and all persons acting in aid of, or in conjunction with them, or any of them, greeting:

Whereas, Dietrich E. Loewe and Martin Fuchs, complainants in the above-entitled cause, and citizens of the state of Connecticut, have filed on the chancery side of the [District] Court of the United States for the northern district of California a bill against the above-named defendants and others, and have obtained an allowance for an injunction as prayed for in said bill:

Now, therefore, we, having regard to the matters in said bill contained, do hereby command and strictly enjoin you, the said California State Federation of Labor, San Francisco Labor Council, Harry Knox, T. F. Gallagher, Nicholas Blum, Daniel D. Sullivan, J. R. Hillis, C. W. Holmquist, J. C. Templeton, John Guinne, Frank J. Bonnington, G. K. Smith, Will J. French, A. C. Rose, Russel I. Wisler, P. H. Coyle, J. A. Johnson, Richard Cornelius, Sarah Hogan, Charles T. Shuppert, J. L. Franklin, Theodore Johnson, G. M. Lipman, Wm. P. McCabe, George Metzger, A. Burton, J. E. Hooper, A. S. Howe, Joseph Moran, Annie Mullen, O. E. Pierce, T. E. Zant, J. R. Roland, your and each of your, attorneys, agents, employees and all persons acting in aid of or in conjunction with you, or any of you, from in any manner agreeing or combining or conspiring together to injure or destroy the trade or business of complainants herein, or to interfere with the manufacture, transportation or sale by complainants or by any other person, firm or corporation, of hats manufactured by complainants; from boycotting or agreeing or attempting to boycott and from declaring or continuing a boycott against complainants or complainants' trade or business or the product of complainants' said factory, or against any

person, firm or corporation, for the purpose of preventing or injuring, and from thereby preventing or injuring, the regular operation and conduct of complainants' trade or business or the transportation or sale of or trade in hats manufactured or sold by said complainants, and from abetting, aiding or assisting in such boycott; from publishing or circulating, in combination, or in pursuance of any conspiracy or agreement to injure or destroy the trade or business of complainants, in writing or orally, any statements or representations advertising or calling the attention of complainants' customers or merchants or tradesmen or the public to any boycott or strike against complainants, or against the product of complainants' said factory, or that, or to the effect that, complainants, complainants' factory, or complainants' goods, or the hats or products made or sold by complainants, or sold by complainants' customers, are or were "unfair," or should not be purchased or dealt in or handled by the public or merchants or tradesmen; from publishing or circulating, in combination, or in pursuance of any conspiracy or agreement to injure or destroy the trade or business of complainants, or for the purpose of injuring or destroying the trade or business of complainants, in writing or orally, statements or representations to customers of complainants, or to dealers in hats, or tradesmen or the public, that complainants' factory, complainants' business, or complainants' hats, or the product of complainants' factory, or either or any of them, are unfair or have been boycotted or are boycotted, or should not be dealt with in or with or sold, and from coercing or inducing or attempting to coerce or induce any such dealer, person, firm or corporation, or the public, not to wear, buy, trade in, deal in, or have in possession, hats or any hat made by complainants, or the product of complainants' factory, for the purposes last aforesaid, and, for like purposes, from threatening any person, firm or corporation with injury or loss to the business or trade of such person, firm or corporation in case such person, firm or corporation should purchase or deal in hats manufactured by complainants, or the product of complainants' said factory; from giving any orders or directions to committees, associations, or others for the performance of any acts or threats hereinbefore enjoined -which commands and injunctions you are respectively required to observe and obey until our said circuit court shall make further order in the premises.

Hereof fail not, under penalty of the law thence ensuing.

Witness the Honorable [John J. De Haven, District Judge of the United States for the Northern District of California.] this 1st day of July, 1905, and in the 129th year of the Independence of the United States of America. FORM XLIV.-ORDER DENYING INJUNCTION UPON BOND FILED BY DEFENDANT.

[TITLE AND RECITALS.]

It is hereby Ordered that the said motion for a preliminary injunction be and the same hereby is denied; upon condition that the defendant give

to the plaintiff a bond with sufficient surety to be approved by the Court for the sum of five thousand ($5,000) dollars conditioned for the payment of all profits and damages that may be decreed against the defendant in this cause for the infringement of the patent described in the bill herein between the date of this order and the final decree in this cause; and it is further Ordered that if the defendant fails to execute and file with the clerk of this court such a bond within thirty (30) days from the date of the entry of this order that the plaintiff may renew said motion.

FORM XLV.-BOND IN PLACE OF INJUNCTION.

Know all men by these presents that John Aber as principal and the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland as surety, are held and firmly bound unto James Piper in the sum of five thousand ($5,000) dollars, to the payment of which they bind themselves and each of them, their heirs, executors, administrators and successors, and the heirs, executors, administrators and successors of each of them, firmly by the presents. Sealed with our seals and dated this 4th day of March, 1922.

The condition of the above bond is such, that whereas an order of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, made and dated on the 3rd day of February, 1922, in a suit in equity therein pending in which suit said James Piper is complainant and said John Aber is defendant has denied a motion for a preliminary injunction upon condition that the said defendant give to the said complainant a bond with sufficient surety to be approved by the court for the payment of all profits and damages that may be decreed against the defendant in said cause. Now, if the said John Aber shall pay to said James Piper all profits and damages that are decreed against said John Aber in this cause favor the infringement of the patent described in the bill of complaint in said cause. [Here insert number and title of patent], between February 3, 1922, the date of said order, and the final decree in said cause, then these presents and this obligation shall be void; otherwise they shall remain in full force and effect. [Add signatures and scals, acknowledgments and justifications of surety company.]

The foregoing bond and surety are hereby approved as to sufficiency and form. New York, March 4th, 1922.

LEARNED HAND,
U. S. District Judge.

FORM XLVI.-ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AGAINST APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER AT FOOT OF DECREE.

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

CHRISTIAN DANCEL and MARY DANCEL as Administrators of the Goods, Chattels and Credits of CHRISTIAN DANCEL, deceased,

against

GOODYEAR SHOE MACHINERY COMPANY of
Portland, Maine, otherwise known as
the United Shoe Machinery Company of
Maine.

In Equity.

On the petition of Christian Dancel and Mary Dancel, Administrator and Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels and Credits of Christian Dancel, deceased, sworn to March 28th, 1905, and the two affidavits of Christian Dancel thereto annexed sworn to on said date, upon the pleadings, testimony, petition and bond upon removal, decree, executions and return thereof and the other proceedings in the suit in equity above entitled; on motion of J. Philip Berg, Attorney and Solicitor for the above named complainants and petitioners; I hereby Order, that the United Shoe Machinery Company of Portland, Maine, show cause before me at a stated term of this Court to be held in the Post Office Building in the City, County and State of New York on the 4th day of April, 1905 at 3:30 P. M. or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, why an order should not be made and entered appointing a Receiver of the assets of the said corporation; and why a writ of injunction, and all the relief prayed in said petition should not be granted; and why the above named complainants and petitioners should not have such other and further relief in the premises as may be just. And I hereby further ORDER, that until the further order of this Court, the said United Shoe Machinery Company of Maine, otherwise known as the Goodyear Shoe Machinery Company of Portland, Maine, and its officers, agents, assigns, employees and attorneys be and the same hereby are enjoined, restrained, stayed from transferring and from interfering with and forbidden to transfer and interfere with any of the property and any of the assets which it now owns and which it owned at any time during the year 1900. Service of this order on Edwards H. Childs, Esq., Solicitor for said defendant, or at his office No. 59 Wall St. New York City and County, in case of his absence from said office on or before March 29th, 1905; and service of this order by depositing a copy of the same in the Post Office of the City and County of New York, registered addressed to The Goodyear Shoe Machinery Company of Portland, Maine, otherwise known as the United Shoe Machinery Company of Maine, at Portland,