DBAKIM V. 8TANT0R. 485 �Until they seek some such remed;, and antil a fair settle- ment npon full accounting can be had, they will be etijoined from attempting to eject the plaintiff, or to seize the property. �ïbe demarrer to the bill is overruled. ���Deakin V. Stanton, impleaded, etc. �{Ovreuit Court, N. D. lUinoit. November, 1879.) �1. SuRBTT— Ihjdnotion Bonb. — A Burety upon an injunction bond In • trade-mark case, conditioned for the payment of ail damagei and Costa to be awarded against the complainant and in f avor of the defendant, upon the trial or final hearing of the matter ref erred to in the bill of complaint, is not liable for damages sustained in consequence of th« isBuing of the injunction, unless the same were awarded at the tima af the trial pf the cause. Bein y. Heath, 12 How. 168, followed. �Demnrrer to Declaration. �Oeorgt C. Christian and Charlet E, Pope, for plaintiff. �Henri/ T. Roger», for defendant. �Blodoett, D. J. These ara two separate cases, apon bonds given by the defendants, Lea à Perrin and Stanton, to the complainant, upon the issne of an injonction in a cause in wbioh Lea & Perrin trere complainants, and Deakin yraa de- fendant, asking that Deakin be enjoined from violating tho alleged trade-mark of the complainant on Worcestersbire aauce. The cause in whicb the injunction was issued was brought to hearing and dismissed for want of equity; and the defendant in that suit now brings suit on this bond to re- cover damages which he sustained by reason of the issuing of the injunction. The first bond vras given in the penal sum of $5,000, and is conditioned for the payment of ail damages and costs to be awarded against the complainant and in favor of the defendant upon the trial or ûnal hearing of the matter referred to in the bill of complaint. �The second suit is brought upon an additional bond, which was given in the same trade-mark case, upon the suggestion ����
