Thе real controversy in the case is between the complainant and the firm of W. A. Ross & Co., and the bill of complaint shows this by thе averments, which otherwise would be wholly irrelevant, that such firm is the importer of the competing bottled stout, is doing, business at the same city with the complainant, and that the stout dealt in by defendant is purchased by him оf that firm. The action is defended by W. A. Ross & Co.
Ross & Co. hаve been selling Guinness’ stout in bottles dressed in thе capsules and labels in controversy, in competition with the com
Treating the case as though Ross & Co. were the defendants, it is one for thе application of the rule that a party cannot invoke the stringent remedy of preliminary injunction who has been guilty of long and unexcused laches in asserting his rights. Having delayed for more than 10 years to аsk for such a remedy, it is fair to assume that -thе complainant will not suffer material injury by being required to wait until the controversy is heаrd upon its merits.
It is suggested, as excusing the laches, that, as both the complainant аnd Ross & Co. were aliens, the former suit would have failed for want of jurisdiction. While this may be true, the suggestion does not appear to have occurred to eithеr party while the suit was pending; but the parties contested upon the merits of the controversy, and, if complainant was really influenced by it, there was no reasоn why the controversy could not have been carried on in the state courts.
Wе are of the opinion that a preliminary injunction should not have been ordered, and the order is accordingly reversed.