Canfield v. Moreschi

64 N.E.2d 177, 294 N.Y. 632
New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 25, 1945·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The limited injunction here granted against defendant International Union was appropriate and valid a procedural device for furnishing adequate protection to plaintiffs. We affirm the judgment, as against defendant International Union, on that sole ground. So doing, we find it unnecessary to pass, and do not in any way pass, on the correctness of any of the findings of fact or conclusions of law which purport to decide, or imply, that defendant International Union, or its members (other than its International officers) are responsible or liable for any of the wrongs committed against plaintiffs by the other defendants.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thacher and Dye, JJ., concur; Lehman, Ch. J., deceased.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Canfield v. Moreschi, 64 N.E.2d 177, 294 N.Y. 632 (N.Y. 1945).

64 N.E.2d 177 (Canfield v. Moreschi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

House v. Schwartz
18 Misc. 2d 21 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Zacharias v. Siegal
7 Misc. 2d 58 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)