JOSEPH DIXON GBOOIBLB 00. V. BENHAM. 6^7 �Bank of Augusta, Georgia, upon a juclgment recovered in the circuit court of the United States for the district of South Carolina. The assignee declined to pay the dividend to the petitioner without a special order of the court. In the case of Kohlsaat, 18 N. B. E. 570, it was held that the payment of moneys, payable under a composition in bankruptcy, could not be interfered with by proceedings in a state court. In the case of Cunningham, 19 N. B. R. 276, the question whether dividends in the hands of an assignee can be attached, was very carefully examined by Judge Love, and it was held that they could not be attached even after the dividend was declared. The case of Dunlap v. Ins. Go., 74 N. Y. 145, seems not ineonsistent with these cases. The petitioner is entitled to the order on the ground that the money in the hands of the assignee could not be reached by attachment. Motion granted. ���Joseph Dixon Ceucible Go. ». Benham. (Circuit Court, D. Conneeticut, November 22, 1880.) 1. Trade-Makk— Wkappeeb and Labels— Stovb Poubh. �In Equity. �Morris W. Seymour, for plaintiff. �H. G. Baldwin, for defendant. �Shipman, D. J. This is a bill in equity, brought by a citi- zen of the state of New Jersey against a citizen of the state of Conneeticut, to restrain the defendant from the use of the plaintiS's trade-mark, and for an account. The trade-mark had never been registered in pursuance of any act of Con- gress. �Joseph Dixon commenced the manufacture of etove polish in Taunton, Massachusetts, at least as early as in the year 1840, and was engaged in the business until 1868, either alone or aa a member of the firm of Joseph Dixon k Co. He ����
