490 FEDERAL REPORTER. �therefor. But there is an intermediate stage of the litigation to be oonsidered. �If the trial court bas, on mature consideration, given its judgment, shall it forego it because at some indefinite tinie thereafter an appeal may be taken ? Suppose it suspends its judgment and no appeal is taken, who shall remedy the mis- chief thus produced ? The plaintifE ought not to be lef t un- protected in whose favor a decision has been had, and on the other hand the defendant ought not to be deprived of his right to an appeal. The law clearly provides for ail cases except that under consideration, viz., the intermediate stage between the decree for a perpetuai injunetion and the account- ing necessary for a final decree, from which alone an appeal can be had. �The attention of the court is called to the following cases, in some of which strong dicta are given, and in others posi- tive decisions made: Barnard v. Gihson, 7 How. 658; Dor- sey Harvester 'Co. v. Marsh, 6 Fisher, 401 ; Bliss v. City of Brooklyn, 4 Fisher, 597; Marris v. LoweU Manufg Co. 3 Fisher, 51; Sanders v. Logan, 2 Fisher, 170; Kirby, etc., v. White, 1 Fbd. Eep. 604; Potter v. Mack, 3 Fisher, 386; Whitney v. Mowry, 3 Fisher, 175. �These are noted among the many cases cited, because they sufEciently establish the rule by which the lower court should be governed, and, so far as seen, no well-considered case is in conflict therewith. The distinction between the doctrines governing a motion for preliminary injunetion and the sus- pension of an interlocutory decree for a perpetuai injunetion, after fuU hearing on the merits, must be carefuUy observed. The force of these authorities isj as. right reason exacts, that eacb court should, according to the facts presented, decide whether, in justice to the parties, the interlocutory decree should be suspended until the final determination of the suit, or take immediate effect. If such be the true rule, what is the rightf ul application in this case ? , This suit has been pending for two years or more, each party confident that the decision would be in his favor. In the meantime each haa proceeded accordingly, The plaintifE had not for many years ��� �
