Case No. 8,560.

LOW v. HAUEL.

[1 Wall. Jr. 345.]¹

Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct 29, 1849.

PRACTICE—FORM OF INJUNCTION.

By the practice of the Third circuit, no money penalty is inserted in an injunction.

Low having obtained a decree of perpetual injunction against Hauel for using certain trade-marks, G. M. Wharton, for the former party, presented a form of injunction in the English form, commanding and enjoining the defendant, “under the penalty of $,——to be levied upon his lands, goods and chattels,” henceforth to desist, &c.

Mr. Guillou objected that by the practice of this circuit, as appeared by many injunctions which he had examined on the files, a pecuniary penalty was not inserted except in special cases; the remedy being always by attachment.

KANE, District Judge. It is not usual, in this circuit, to insert a pecuniary penalty, though one is almost always found in the English forms. There was a case here, some time since, where, a penalty being inserted, the matter was said to be misunderstood. The defendant, professing to understand it as an alternative, proceeded to violate the injunction, finding it more profitable, perhaps, to pay the penalty, than to desist from his work. Money penalty not inserted.

¹ [Reported by John William Wallace, Esq.]

This volume of American Law was transcribed for use on the Internet
through a contribution from Google.