Conde

There have been two appeals in this case— the first, from an order “granting plaintiffs an injunction pendente lite as prayed for in the complaint,” and the present appeal from the judgment awarding a permanent injunction and from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

In the decision on the former appeal ( 14 Cal. App. 20 , [ 110 Pac. 973 ]) may be found a full statement of the facts, and it is deemed unnecessary to repeat them here. On said appeal, it may be said, also, two questions discussed herein by appellant were decided adversely to his contention, and as to them the decision must now be considered the law of the ease. They involve the action of the court in allowing the supplemental complaint to be filed and the sufficiency of the complaint in its statement of a cause of action. The only vital point to be determined on this appeal relates to the support for the findings furnished by the evidence. It may be stated that the cause was submitted upon the evidence taken at the hearing for a preliminary injunction, but that evidence was not brought up on the former appeal.

Plaintiff James E. Conde testified that the machinery described in the complaint was…