16 mnnnn. nnponrnn.
ment at an early day is to be presumed. Purchasers of real estate
do not expect, after their purchase, to be confronted with the resur-
rection from the distant past of a tax claim. The common idea re·
specting taxes; general or special, is their speedy extinction by pay-
ment, or translation by legal proceedings into tax titles. The com-
plainant does not come before the court as one who has been long
endeavoring to collect a just debt, or even as one who has waited `
for years in over-generous reliance upon the willingness of owners
of lots to repay him the money he has expended in improving their
property. He has simply purchased a cadaver, and is seeking, by
the mystic powers of a court of equity, to galvanize it into life. The
claim is stale.
Judgment will be entered in favor of the defendants. _ »
Pomuouno v. Momm and others.
(Circuit Oourt, S. D. New York. July 13, 1886.)
Tnknn-Msizx-—INJuNo*rroN—Gn1vmz.u. Usa or Srmson.
Preliminary injunction denied where affidavits of defendants make it doubt~
ful whether the plaintiff has so had exclusive use of symbols sought to be re~
strained as to make their use by defendants likely to pass their wares as his.
In Equity.
Fmnlcliin Swayne, for orator.
r Wingate at Cullen, for defendants.
Wnnnnna, J. The plaintiff shows that he has used the symbols
mentioned in his bill of complaint to designate cigars made by him,
and that the defendants make use of the same. But the afiidavits.
of defendants show that the same symbols were used by others upon
cigar-boxes before, or about the time, the plaintiff began to use them.
These afhdavits make it doubtful whether the plaintid has so had ‘
the exclusive use of the symbols that the use of them by the de-.
fendants serves to pass their cigars as those of the plaintiff. This
question cannot safely be determined upon the afiidavits, but should
be established by evidence regularly taken in due course. The plain-
tiff does not appear to be entitled to a preliminary injunction. Mo-.
tion denied. _