Case ID: f_200/html/0572-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PNEUMATIC SCALE CORPORATION, Limited, v. AUTOMATIC WEIGHING MACH. CO.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
    February 20, 1912.)
    No. 959.
    Appeal and Ebeob (§ 480) — Injunction—Stay—Bond.
    Where the court, having granted an injunction, sustained defendant’s motion for a stay pending appeal, complainant, not having applied for a bond in the trial court, was not entitled to an order for a bond in the appellate court because- of matters of which complainant had knowledge at the time the stay was granted.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 2257; Dee. Dig. § 480.]
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maine; William U. Putnam. Judge.
    Suit by the Automatic Weighing Machine Company against the Pneumatic Scale Corporation, Limited. Judgment for complainant, and defendant appeals. On motion for bond on stay of injunction pending appeal.
    Dismissed.
    See, also, 200 Fed. 573.
    
      William K. Richardson, of Boston,' Mass. (J. Lewis Stackpole, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellant.
    Benjamin Phillips, of Boston, Mass. (Alfred H. Hildreth and Elmer P. Howe, both of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellee.
    Before COLT, Circuit Judge, and ALDRICH and BROWN, District Judges.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic & § number in Deo. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

In this case the injunction was appárently suspended by the Circuit Court in its discretion (Leonard v. Ozark Land Co., 115 U. S. 465, 469, 6 Sup. Ct. 127, 29 L. Ed. 445; equity rule 93) upon motion and notice to the party in whose favor the injunction was granted. There was no suggestion of a bond for damages at the time and the party now moving for a bond had all the knowledge about the situation then that it has now. The only ground for a bond now suggested is that the case cannot be heard until April. The party knew at the time the order suspending the injunction was made that it probably could not be heard until April. Without regard to the original question of right, we think the party who held the injunction is now asking, without any change of circumstances, for what he should have asked for in the court below.

In view of such a situation, ordinarily, a question like this will not be opened here, except upon a substantial change of circumstances.

Motion dismissed.