MILLER v. MORLEY FINISHING MACH. CO., 87 F. 621

PER CURIAM. With reference to the letter of Mr.

Sinclair, which it is admitted must be read into the alleged agreement which the plaintiff seeks to enforce, it appears to the court that the expression “cash for his merchandise” is so indefinite as to leave the alleged agreement so vague that it is doubtful whether an equity court can compel its enforcement; and, moreover, it is doubtful whether the instrument of conveyance submitted to the defendant for execution by him contained a proper offer to carry out the draft contract as it was supplemented by that letter; and, further, it appears very doubtful whether the alleged agreement covers the patents relating to hinged lasts, in reference to which an apparently fair controversy has arisen between the parties.

On the whole, the court is of the opinion that the case, as presented, is. so doubtful on the merits that an injunction of the broad character granted below, involving the defendant in so much inconvenience and possible loss, ought not, in this case, to be affirmed. The order appealed from is reversed, and the costs of this court are awarded to the appellant.