Decorative Stone Co. v. Building Trades Council of Westchester County

Second Circuit

Decorative Stone Co. v. Building Trades Council of Westchester County

13 F.2d 123, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3522

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 1926

Docket383

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 13 F.2d 123 (Decorative Stone Co. v. Building Trades Council of Westchester County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Decorative Stone Co. v. Building Trades Council of Westchester County, 13 F.2d 123, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3522 (2d Cir. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Several questions of importance and difficulty have been, argued, but wo find ourselves able to express opinion on one point only, viz. that no error was committed in refusing injunctive relief upon ex parte affidavits alone.

The law and practice in this circuit is, we think, well settled. This court is, to say the least, disinclined to determine questions of fact upon ex parte affidavits. Hadden v. Dooley, 74 F. 429, 20 C. C. A. 494. To entitle a complainant to a preliminary injunction, he must present a clear title, or one free from reasonable doubt. Stevens v. Missouri, etc., Co., 106 F. 771, 45 C. C. A. 611; Cutter Co. v. Metropolitan Co. (C. C. A.) 275 F. 158. Where the bill and answer in a suit present debatable questions, it is within the discretion of the court to refuse to grant a preliminary injunction on affidavits. Horsman v. Kaufman (C. C. A.) 286 F. 372. Unless such discretion be abused in granting or denying injunction, the action will not he reviewed on appeal. Goldwyn Corp. v. Goldwyn (C. C. A.) 296 F. 391.

We think debatable questions were presented, and that the issuance of injunction was a matter of discretion, and that discretion was not abused; therefore the order contains no error. We express opinion on no point other than the foregoing.

Order affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Several questions of importance and difficulty have been, argued, but wo find ourselves able to express opinion on one point only, viz. that no error was committed in refusing injunctive relief upon ex parte affidavits alone.

The law and practice in this circuit is, we think, well settled. This court is, to say the least, disinclined to determine questions of fact upon ex parte affidavits. Hadden v. Dooley, 74 F. 429, 20 C. C. A. 494. To entitle a complainant to a preliminary injunction, he must present a clear title, or one free from reasonable doubt. Stevens v. Missouri, etc., Co., 106 F. 771, 45 C. C. A. 611; Cutter Co. v. Metropolitan Co. (C. C. A.) 275 F. 158. Where the bill and answer in a suit present debatable questions, it is within the discretion of the court to refuse to grant a preliminary injunction on affidavits. Horsman v. Kaufman (C. C. A.) 286 F. 372. Unless such discretion be abused in granting or denying injunction, the action will not he reviewed on appeal. Goldwyn Corp. v. Goldwyn (C. C. A.) 296 F. 391.

We think debatable questions were presented, and that the issuance of injunction was a matter of discretion, and that discretion was not abused; therefore the order contains no error. We express opinion on no point other than the foregoing.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 F.2d 123, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decorative-stone-co-v-building-trades-council-of-westchester-county-ca2-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack