PBNTLARflB V, BEESTON. �injûnction, -when isBued, shouldbe forever inoperative, and of no avail to the plaintiff. �To suppose such an intention, is to suppose that the pro- vision for a perpetuai injûnction was intended to be vain words, without meaning or effect. Moreover, the acts of the parties are not in harmony with such an understanding, for not only was a final decree directing a perpetuai injûnction entered upon notice, without objection, but the writ of injûnc- tion was actually issued in pursuance of the decree and served upon the defendants by the marshal, ail without objection or question by the defendants. The only understanding con- Bistent with the ternis of the compromise and the acts of the parties is that it was intended that the plaintiff should make no complaint respecting the disobedienee of the injûnction during the existence of the lioense, but that in case of a ter- mination of the license the injûnction should be available to the plaintiff for the protection of his rights as fixed by the final decree. �The next position taken by the defendants is that the plain- tiff himself was the first to break the agreement respecting the price at which the bungs were to be sold, and that the notice of revocation was not given in accordance with the terms of the license, or because of any substantial violation of the license by the defendants, but for the purpose of com- pelling the defendants to buy the plaintiff's patent. �If the defendants were now insisting upon their right to the license there might be a question whether it would be com- petent for the court to pass on the effect of the notice of rev- ocation upon a motion to attach the defendants for contempt. Although in this instance the license is in writing, and no oon- troversy exists as to its terms, the remarks of the supreme court in Hartell v. Tilghman, (99 U. S. E. 556,) are calou- lated to render it doubtful whether, in the absence of a-termi- nation of the license by mutual agreement or final decree, a revocation of the license could be held to have been effected by the notice given. But the difficulty with the defendants' position is that they now deny the plaintiff's power to graut �T.l,no.lO — 55 ��� �
