the Six Clerks' certificate now produced and read appears. It was therefore prayed that an injunction may be awarded to restrain the defendant, his servants, workmen, and agents, (1) from printing, or causing to be printed, any more copies of the said plate, and from selling, or exposing to sale, (2) or bartering, or otherwise disposing of any copies thereof now remaining unsold, until the defendant shall fully answer the plaintiff's bill, and (3) this Court make other order to the contrary; which is ordered accordingly. Jefferys v. Bowles, Lords Commissioners, 19th February, 1770. Reg. Lib. A. 1769. fol. 161. S. C. 1. Dick. 429.

For writ of injunction to restrain copying engravings. See Harr. 558.

NOTES.

(1) See No. XIV. Note (1), ante.

(2) See No. XX. Note (2), ante.

(3) See No. XIV. Note (2), ante.

No. XXIII.

ORDER FOR REFERENCE IN SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.

Their Lordships do by consent order that it be referred to Mr. P. one &c. to see whether the copper-plate published by the defendant, entitled &c. is of the same size and scale, and has the same marginal notes and directions or instructions, and is in all respects the same as the first plate published by the plaintiff entitled &c. save an affected variation in the historical and geographical anecdotes in the margin. And the said Master is to state the same with his opinion thereon to the Court, and thereupon such further order shall be made relating thereto as shall be just. Jefferys v. Bowles, Lords Commissioners, 17th March, 1770. Reg. Lib. A. 1769. fol. 267. S. C. 1 Dick. 429.

For like order not by consent. See Trusler v. Cummings, L. C. 11th May, 1773. Reg. Lib. B. 1772. fol. 284. S. C. 1 Dick. 429.

note.

No. XXIV.

ORDER FOR DISSOLVING SPECIAL INJUNCTION. Whereas the plaintiff obtained an injunction to restrain the defendant, his servants &c. from committing any waste &c. until the defendant should have fully answered the plaintiff's bill and this Court make other order to the contrary. Now upon opening of the matter this present day unto the Right Honourable &c. by Mr. Solicitor-General &c. being of the defendant's counsel, it was alleged that the defendant has since put in a full and perfect answer to the plaintiff's bill, and thereby denies the whole equity thereof. Whereupon and upon hearing of Mr. Attorney-General &c. of counsel for the plaintiff, and of what was alleged &c. his Lordship doth order that the said injunction be dissolved. Norton v. Aylett, L. C. 22d April, 1749. Reg. Lib. B. 1748. fol. 318. S. C. 2 Dick. 793, note.

NOTE.

Formerly where special injunctions were granted till answer and further order [See No. XIV. Note (2), ante.] they might be dissolved like the common injunction [See No. III. ante.] by an order nisi on the coming in of the answer. See Countess of Strathmore v. Bowes, 2 Dick. 675. S. C. 1 Cox, 263. Trusler v. Cummings, L. C. 28th April, 1773. Reg. Lib. B. 1772. fol. 432.

Or by an original motion upon the coming in of the answer without an order nisi. Norton v. Aylett, supra. Mount v. Fenner, M. R. 25th July, 1732. Reg. Lib. B. 1731. fol. 383. S. C. [Mount v. Turner,] 2 Dick. 793.

But since special injunctions have been granted till answer or further order [See No. XIV. Note (2), ante.] the defendant may move at any time. See Earnshaw v. Thornhill, 18 Ves. 488. Vipan v. Mortlock, 2 Mer. 479.

No. XXV.

DECREE FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT. Their Lordships do order and decree that the injunction formerly granted in this cause for stay of the defendants,

their servants, agents, or workmen, from printing, publishing, or vending, a book, comedy, or farce, called "Love à-la-mode," or any part thereof, be made perpetual. And the plaintiff waiving the account prayed by the bill, their Lordships do not think fit to direct any account. And it is further ordered that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff his costs of this suit, to be taxed by Mr. G. one &c. Macklin v. Richardson, Lords Commissioners, 5th December, 1770. Reg. Lib. B. 1770. fol. 35. S. C. Ambl. 694.

NOTE.

(1) If the cause is brought to a hearing, a decree will be made for a perpetual injunction and an account of profits. See Macklin v. Richardson, supra.

But this is seldom done. See Whittingham v. Wooller, 2 Swan. 430. note.

DECREES AND ORDERS RESPECTING

RECEIVERS.

No. I.

ORDER FOR RECEIVER OF REAL ESTATE. (1)

His Lordship doth order that it be referred to Mr. C. one &c. to appoint (2) a proper person to be receiver of the rents and profits of the estates, situate at

in the pleadings in this cause mentioned, and to allow him a proper salary (3) for his care and pains therein; the person so to be appointed receiver first giving security (4), to be approved of by the said Master, and to be taken before a Master Extraordinary in the country, if there should be occasion, duly and annually to account for and pay what he shall so receive, as is hereafter directed, or as the Court shall direct. And the tenants of the said estates are to attorn (5), and pay their rents in arrear and growing rents to such receiver; who is to be at liberty to let (6) and set the said estates from time to time, with the approbation of the said Master, as there shall be occasion. And it is ordered, that the said receiver do from time to time pass his accounts (7) before the said Master, and pay the balances that shall be reported due from him into the Bank, with the privity of the Accountant-General of this Court, to be there placed to the credit of this cause, subject to the further order of this Court. Metcalfe v. Pulvertoft, L. C. 16th January, 1813. Reg. Lib. B. 1812. fol. 505. S. C. 1V. & B. 180.

For like orders. See Equity Draftsman, 660.662. 1 Turn. Pract.247.

NOTES.

(1) The form of a decree for a receiver is the same with that of an interlocutory order.

(2) Appointment.

The order is that the Master shall appoint, not approve, as in the case of a guardian. Bowersbank v. Colasseau, 3 Ves. 165. Creuze v. Bishop of London, 2 Dick. 687. S. C. 2 Bro. 253. And see Decrees respecting Executors, &c. No. IV. ante, Decrees &c. respecting Infants, No. VIII. ante. His discretion is not to be con

trouled, but upon a strong ground. See Creuze v. Bishop of London, supra. Thomas v. Dawkin, 1 Ves. jun. 452. S. C. 3 Bro. 508. Garland v. Garland, 2 Ves. jun. 137. Bowersbank v. Colasseau, 3 Ves. 164. Anon. 3 Ves. 515. Wilkins v. Williams, 3 Ves. 588. Tharpe v. Tharpe, 12 Ves. 317. Wynne v. Lord Newborough, 15 Ves. 283.

The right to propose a person as receiver belongs, in the first instance, to the parties interested in the suit. Attorney-General v. Day, 2 Mad. 257. A stranger cannot propose a person as receiver, Ib. 256. Whether, where the parties neglect to propose a person as receiver, the Master can himself propose one. Q. Ib. 254. The Master having appointed a receiver upon his own nomination, was, under the circumstances, directed to review his report. Ib. 257. It is the duty of the Master to appoint the person whom he thinks most fit, without regard to who may propose or recommend him. Lespinasse v. Bell, 2 J. & W. 436. A party to the suit cannot propose himself as receiver, without the leave of the Court. See Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, 2 Swan. 118. And see Jefferys v. Smith, No. V. post.

(3) Salary.

The usual allowance is 51. per cent. on the gross rental of the estates, 1 Turn. Pract. 258. But this is the maximum; and where the rental is very considerable, a per centage at a much lower rate would be allowed, or a stated salary sufficient to compensate the receiver's services. Ib. He may be entitled to an allowance beyond his salary for extraordinary trouble and expenses. See Potts v. Leighton, 15 Ves. 276. But not without a previous order authorising it. In matter of Ormsby, 1 Ba. & Be. 189.

(4) Security.

The security usually required is his own recognizance with that of two sureties. See Mead v. Lord Orrery, 3 Atk. 237. The taking an assignment of a mortgage belonging to the receiver instead of it,