Johnson Wholesale Perfume Co. v. Schwartz
4 Conn. Supp. 356, 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 220
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 →
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.
[357]*357The 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
Johnson Wholesale Perfume Co. v. Schwartz, 4 Conn. Supp. 356, 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 220 (Colo. Ct. App. 1936).
4 Conn. Supp. 356 (Johnson Wholesale Perfume Co. v. Schwartz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
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)