BROWN V. DEERE. 489 �spond. Pending proceedings for the ascertainment of that Bum, it is asked that the injunction be suspended so that the defendants may continue to infringe, upon giving bond to answer in damages, etc., if it be finally determined on appeal that they are liable. �The underlying thought bas often occurred to this court with respect to both equity and admiralty cases ; and it bas sougbt in vain to rescue litigants from the obvions mischief to ensue if its decisions should be finally reversed. Still, the United States supreme court bas held, and still holds, that no case can pass under its supervision until final judgment, which final judgment, in equity or admiralty, is not when the main question as to liability is determined, but when the case is finally closed, including damages, etc., whereby the meas- ure of liability is also ascertained. The grounds of these decisions are familiar and of great force. Cases should not go to that tribunal in a fragmentary way; that is, it should not be required to pass upon the interlocutory decrees or judgments of the lower courts, and then have subsequently to adjudicate in the same cases supplementary questions. �Such being the rule as to appeals, what remedy has a de- fendant intermediate the interlocutory and final decree ? He may be positive in his conclusions that the court below has committed a grave error which the appellate tribunal will correct, yet great or irreparable damage will ensue if in the intermediate time the judgment of the court is not stayed — not intermediate the final decree and the decision of the supreme court against which a supersedeas can be had, but intermediate the interlocutory and final decree of the lower court. �On the other hand it is urged, as in this case, that a court of competent jurisdiction having decided that an infringe- ment exists, it should not tolerate the continuance of such an infringement to the destruction, it may be, of plaintiff's rights, because the defendant, perchance, may, at a proper time, take an appeal. It is to be presumed that eacb court has full confidence in its own judgment, yet is solicitous for a fnll review, and will give the amplest opportunitie» ��� �
