Johnson Wholesale Perfume Co. v. Schwartz

4 Conn. Super. Ct. 356

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Johnson Wholesale Perfume Co. v. Schwartz. Read the opinion of the Court — 4 Conn. Super. Ct. 99 →

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided December 18, 1936·No. File No. 50510·Published

Opinion

The allegation sought to be expunged goes to the heart of the defense. This motion is limited in scope, its use is not encouraged and it should be applied only when the defect is plain.

Whitney vs. Cady, 71 Conn. 166, 171. Bitello vs. Lipson, 80 Conn. 497, 503. Donovan vs. Davis, 85 Conn. 394, 398. Warner vs. Railroad, 86 Conn. 561, 566. *Page 357

The citations from Nims on Unfair Competition seem to indicate that the defense attacked would be good even on demurrer. See pages 825, 826, 977-981.

The motion is denied.

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

The allegation sought to be expunged goes to the heart of the defense. This motion is limited in scope, its use is not encouraged and it should be applied only when the defect is plain.

Whitney vs. Cady, 71 Conn. 166, 171. Bitello vs. Lipson, 80 Conn. 497, 503. Donovan vs. Davis, 85 Conn. 394, 398. Warner vs. Railroad, 86 Conn. 561, 566. *Page 357

The citations from Nims on Unfair Competition seem to indicate that the defense attacked would be good even on demurrer. See pages 825, 826, 977-981.

The motion is denied.

Johnson Wholesale Perfume Co. v. Schwartz, 4 Conn. Super. Ct. 356 (Colo. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

4 Conn. Super. Ct. 356 (Johnson Wholesale Perfume Co. v. Schwartz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Warner v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

86 A. 23 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1913)

Bitello v. Lipson

69 A. 21 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1908)

Donovan v. Davis

82 A. 1025 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1912)

Whitney v. Cady

41 A. 550 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1898)

Opinion

Related