fare of New Orleans-which city is so dependent on commerceshould be gratified to find that the money that the city has the legal right to exact from commerce for facilities furnished is to be devoted to the furnishing of still further facilities and increased protection. -There can be no doubt that on such a busy levee as that of New Orleans, wharfinge.rs, signal officers, etc., and a police force, are necessary for the benefit of commerce, and without which all would be turmoil and confusion. As for the electric-light system, while opinions may vary as to its success and usefulness, the city has a right to try it in place of other lights, and it is to be hoped the experiment will be snccessful. That the complainant does not load or unload at the wharves at night, and therefore does not want any light there, can furnish no rule as to other parties who may desire to nse the wharves at night. That the and city get a share, whole levee is to be lighted, and perhaps the . is also a vain objection. Under the conclusions reached, the application for injunction must be denied, and the outstanding restraining order be dissolved. And it is so ordered.
(Oircuit Oourt,8. D. N61IJ York.
An accounting betWeen partners 'cannot be had on affidavits on an interlocutory motion, but must be had in the orderly progress of a suit.
A temporary injunction may be granted, pending a suit for an accounting, to prevent one partner by a sale of the. partnership property from changing the BtatuBof the other partners in respect to it, where the injurj" resulting from such sale could not be remedied. U. 8. v. Duluth, 1 Dill. 469,474, cited and approved.
In Equity. G. Bliss and R. M. Sherman, for plaintiff. F. N. Bangs and F. E. Smith, for defendant. BLATCHFORD, J. On all the before me I do not think it can be said that there was not a partnership between Wetmore and the defendant which continued until ,the interest .of Wetmore passed to the plaintiff, or that, there is not a subsisting relation between the.
by S. White, Esq., of the
plaintiff and the defendant, on the basis of which padnership and which relation the plaintiff can maintain this suit to obtain an acconnting by the defendant as to his dealings and transactions respecting the property in question from the commencement. The bill prays for such an accounting. It cannot be had on affidavits, onan interlocutory motion. It must be had in the orderly progress of a suit. I am not prepared to hold now that the suit is barred by the two years' statute of limitations. On the foregoing basis, the case made by the bill is not satisfactorily refuted by the defendant. If the threatened sale of stock takes place, the injury to result to the plaintiff from the sale cannot be remedied. In such a case a temporary injunction is granted. U. S. v.· Duluth, 1 Dillon, 4:69, 4:74:. .The defendant has i,n his hands themine and all the property, and the effect of the injunction is only to prevent him from changing the status of the plaintiff in respect to the property while the suit is pending. The injunction contained in the order of May 31, 1881, will be continued.
UNITED STATES V. MILLS.
(Circuit Court, W. IJ. Wisconsin.
1 GOVERNMENT LANDs-INNOCENT TRESPASSER. It is a good defence to an action of trover against an innocent trespassel
upon government lands, for the value of timber cut by him therefrom, that he afterwards entered the land from the government, paid the price therefor and the costs up to the time of entry.
2 . .MEiSURE OF DAMAGES.
When a wilful trespasser cuts and rem oves timber. and converts it into logs ties, or piles, the measure of damages is the market value of the latter, in cash, at the time and place of their sale delivery, and not the value of the stumpage merely.
This was an action of trover brought in the above court by the United States against the defendant to recover the val!1e of a quantity of pine timber alleged to have been cut and removed from lands of the United States by the defendant. The case was tried at the special December term, 1881, of said court, at Madison, before Bunn, D. J., and a jury, H. 11,1. Lei()is, U. S. Atty., and J. M. Bingham, for the United States. E. E. Bryant and J. M. Morrow, for defendant.