Meyer v. Perlstein

Ohio Supreme Court

Meyer v. Perlstein

107 Ohio St. (N.S.) 398

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 17, 1923

DocketNo. 17596

StatusPublished

This text of 107 Ohio St. (N.S.) 398 (Meyer v. Perlstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meyer v. Perlstein, 107 Ohio St. (N.S.) 398 (Ohio 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

This is an action wherein plaintiffs sought to enjoin certain garment workers’ and manufacturers’ associations from interfering, by threats or other unlawful means, with the business and customers of the plaintiffs, and also from interfering with certain contracts alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiffs and some of the defendants.

The defendants answered, substantially denying the material allegations of the petition. The cause was heard by the court of common pleas, and appealed to the Court of Appeals. The latter court finding “all of the issues in favor of the defendants” dissolved the injunction theretofore allowed.

Since no finding of facts was made by the appellate court, this court finds itself unable, upon the state of this record, and in view of said journal entry, to do otherwise than affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Bay and Allen, JJ., concur.

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

By the Court.

This is an action wherein plaintiffs sought to enjoin certain garment workers’ and manufacturers’ associations from interfering, by threats or other unlawful means, with the business and customers of the plaintiffs, and also from interfering with certain contracts alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiffs and some of the defendants.

The defendants answered, substantially denying the material allegations of the petition. The cause was heard by the court of common pleas, and appealed to the Court of Appeals. The latter court finding “all of the issues in favor of the defendants” dissolved the injunction theretofore allowed.

Since no finding of facts was made by the appellate court, this court finds itself unable, upon the state of this record, and in view of said journal entry, to do otherwise than affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Bay and Allen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 Ohio St. (N.S.) 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-perlstein-ohio-1923.