Oak Worksted Mills v. McCaughn

6 F.2d 662, 5 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 5494, 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1167, 5 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 5494
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania·Decided July 8, 1925·No. No. 3379·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

THOMPSON, District Judge.

The corn trolling facts in this ease are substantially [663]*663identical with those in the case of Emaus Silk Co. v. McCaughn (D. C.) 6 F.(2d) 660, in which an opinion was filed this day.

Eor the reasons stated in that opinion, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction herein is denied, and a decree may be entered dismissing the bill.

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

Oak Worksted Mills v. McCaughn, 6 F.2d 662, 5 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 5494, 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1167, 5 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 5494 (E.D. Pa. 1925).

6 F.2d 662 (Oak Worksted Mills v. McCaughn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related