Loven v. People ex rel. Dr. Peter Fahrney & Sons Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Loven v. People ex rel. Dr. Peter Fahrney & Sons Co.

57 Ill. App. 506, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 326

DecidedFebruary 12, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 57 Ill. App. 506 (Loven v. People ex rel. Dr. Peter Fahrney & Sons Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Loven v. People ex rel. Dr. Peter Fahrney & Sons Co., 57 Ill. App. 506, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 326 (Ill. Ct. App. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Justice Gary

delivered the opinion of the Court.

On the 12th day of Rovember, 1894, this court affirmed the decree of the Circuit Court by which, inter alia, the appellant was enjoined “ from in any manner corresponding or communicating (in any way) with the agents and customers of said complainant (Doctor Peter Fahrney & Sons Company), or soliciting said customers or agents to purchase medicines sold by defendant in the sale of medicine of any kind.”

He has done what he was thus enjoined not to do, and his excuse is that such agents and customers wrote to him first, and that the correspondence and solicitation on his part were in reply. That is no excuse. The injunction was for the protection of the Fahrney & Sons Co., and the injury to it is the same, regardless of how the correspondence commenced.

The order punishing him for contempt in disobeying the injunction by ten days imprisonment, is affirmed.

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

Me. Justice Gary

delivered the opinion of the Court.

On the 12th day of Rovember, 1894, this court affirmed the decree of the Circuit Court by which, inter alia, the appellant was enjoined “ from in any manner corresponding or communicating (in any way) with the agents and customers of said complainant (Doctor Peter Fahrney & Sons Company), or soliciting said customers or agents to purchase medicines sold by defendant in the sale of medicine of any kind.”

He has done what he was thus enjoined not to do, and his excuse is that such agents and customers wrote to him first, and that the correspondence and solicitation on his part were in reply. That is no excuse. The injunction was for the protection of the Fahrney & Sons Co., and the injury to it is the same, regardless of how the correspondence commenced.

The order punishing him for contempt in disobeying the injunction by ten days imprisonment, is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 Ill. App. 506, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loven-v-people-ex-rel-dr-peter-fahrney-sons-co-illappct-1895.