ZANB ». LOFFE. 229 �jng to De Florez v. Reynolds, S. D. N. Y. February, 1880, this patent will run 17 years from that date only. An injunction isBued in pursuance of a final decree should, by ita terma, be limited to the time it may properly remain in force ; and an injunction to restrain infringement of a patent can, of course, properly continue only during the term of the patent. No question as to this has been made by counsel, and it is not intended to conclude any question that might be made by what is here said. It seems most proper now that the injunction should issue for the remainder of the term as it now appears, which is for 17 years from February 14, 1865, leaving the parties to move further in respect to it as they may be advised. �Let there be a decree for an injunction, and an account accordingly, with costs. ���Zane and another v. LoFPB. �{Circuit Court, 8. D. New York. March 9, 1880.) �Patent — Evidencb of Usb of Similab Abtioi.es at Time of Patent. — Evidence of the manufacture aud use of an article similar to that covered by the patent, at the timeof its issuance, held proper, as tending to show what was in existence at the time, though knowledge had not been pleaded. �Bamk — SELF-CLOsiNaFAUCET. — Defcndant's patent forself-closïng faucet, where the valve is lif ted against a spring by a stem, with projections near the valve working against inclines under the shell, Tidd, not an infringe- ment upon one where the valve is puahed downwards from its seat against a spring by a screw turned by hand, with a swivel to prevent turning the valve with the screw, which lets the valve back whea th» screw is released. �In Equity. �George Wm. Clarke, for complainants. Duell, Wells dcDuell, tox defendant �Whbeler, J. This suit is brought upon letters patent No. 48,407, dated June 27, 1865, and issued to Nathaniel Jen- ����
