8TB0BBIDQB V. LINDSAY. 611 �box by the upper part of the bopper, or a flange tbereon, iSubstantially as and for the purpose specified."* Accordingly, on May 31, 1880, a writ of injunction was issiied against tho defendants and duly served upon them. The case is now bef ore the court on a rule granted upon the defendants to show cause why an attachment should not issue against them tot violating the injunction. From the affidavits now submitted it appears that after the opinion of the court was filed the defendants returned to Landers, Prary & Clark ail the cof- fee-mills they had on hand, of the pattern complained of , and afterwards received in exchange from the manufacturera other coffee'jmills, constructed like the exhibit n.ow produced, and designated the "Lloyd coffee-mill." These latter mills the' defendants have sold and are now selling. �The plaintiff complains that these mills embody bis inven- tion equally with those fcrmerly sold by the defendants. This is denied by the defendants, who allege that the "Lloyd coffee-mill" differs essentially from those mills in that it does not have a detachable hopper and grinding-shell formed in a single piece,' but, on the contrary, that the hopper and grind- ing-shell thereof are separate constructions. It is certainly true that in the "Lloyd coffee-mill" the hopper and grinding- shell are cast separately, but they are mechanically attached together before they are suspended within the box. This union is thus effected: The hopper is provided with two wire pins cast ia it, one on each side of the lower opening, and the lower end of the hopper has an annular shoulder around it, against which the grinding-shell is placed. The grinding-sheU has a lug on each side, corresponding in loca- tion with the pins of the hopper, with holes for their reception. The hopper and grinding-shell are securely and firmly united by inserting the annular flange of the latter into the lower end of the hopper, and the pins of the hopper into the holes in the lugs of the grinding-shell, and then bending the pins sidewise. �Why, sinoe the injunction was granted, have Landers»
- See 2 FED. Rep. 692.
��� �
