Lowenbein v. Fuldner

2 Misc. 176, 50 N.Y. St. Rep. 520
CourtThe Superior Court of New York City
DecidedJanuary 15, 1893
StatusPublished

This text of 2 Misc. 176 (Lowenbein v. Fuldner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lowenbein v. Fuldner, 2 Misc. 176, 50 N.Y. St. Rep. 520 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Opinion

Freedman, J.

The action is brought to enjoin the violation by the defendant of the stipulations of a contract made between the parties, whereby the defendant engaged to manufacture for the plaintiffs, and not otherwise, a certain article of merchandise known as a sideboard of a certain character and description, according to a special and unique design, and certain working drawings furnished by the plaintiffs.

The restriction imposed by the contract upon the defendant is a reasonable one, and there is nothing in it which is against [177]*177public policy. At the trial the plaintiffs brought their case fully within the principle of the decision of Saltus v. Belford Co., 133 N. Y. 499, and also satisfactorily showed that the common, law affords them no adequate remedy against the violations, actual and threatened, of the contract by the defendant.

Upon the whole case the equitable interposition of the court is fully justified, and the defendant stands properly enjoined.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Mcábam and Gildeksleeve, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Saltus v. Belford Co.
31 N.E. 518 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Misc. 176, 50 N.Y. St. Rep. 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowenbein-v-fuldner-nysuperctnyc-1893.