628 fEDEBAL BBPOBTEB. �if they are accessible; and if they are not so served, and no excuse for it appear, as to them the injunction should be deemed waived or as never in force. �In James v, Downes, 18 Ves. 522, 525, Lord Eldon says: "The court can never intend that the plaintiii, having obtained the order gi'anting the injunction, is to lie by for four montbs as if it bad not been granted. The court, interposing to assist the plaintiff, and pre- vent his losing the benefit of the process while he is actually pursu- iug it, cannot consider him entitled, under the order, for tbree or four months together;" and for the plaintiff's laches in that case in cntering the order, though the defendant knew of the decision of the court. Lord Eldon dismissed the motion to punish the disobe- dience of it. In this case no reason existed for not observing the ordinary rule requiring service of the order upon Youmans and his attomey. In consequence of failure to do so, a long controversy has sprung up, occupied largely on the part of the bankrupt in endeavoring to prove knowledge of the injunction through indirect sources. His attorney has presented the matter with a zeal and care and thoroughness which, in a worthier subject, would deserve the highest praise; but, in my judgment, the court should refuse to entertain such close controversies of fact, concerning indirect notice, which arise solely through the laches of the parties in serving the original injunction order, and through the non-observance, without excuse, of the ordinary rule requiring personal service or notice of the injunction order, where practicable, in order to bring the party into contempt. Whipple v. Hutchinson, 4 Blatchf. 190; Coddington v. Webb, i Sandf, 639; 1 Daniell, Ch. Pr. (ith Ed.) 898, 1674. �On these grounds the petition and order to show cause are dis- missed, with costs. ��� �
