Paine Lumber Co. v. Neal

214 F. 82, 130 C.C.A. 522, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1119
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedApril 7, 1914
DocketNo. 197
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 214 F. 82 (Paine Lumber Co. v. Neal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Paine Lumber Co. v. Neal, 214 F. 82, 130 C.C.A. 522, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1119 (2d Cir. 1914).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree with Judge Mayer that, since it clearly appears — indeed, the .proposition is not disputed — that defendants’ acts were not malicious nor personally directed against the individual complainants, injunctive relief, which is all they pray for, cannot be granted in this suit. The bill was, therefore, properly dismissed. Any discussion of the other questions raised, viz., whether the particular agreements or combinations are obnoxious either to the common law or to-one or more of these statutes would be academic and need not now be entered into.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Mayer Bros. Poultry Farms v. Meltzer
274 A.D. 169 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1948)
Leader Theatre Corp. v. Randforce Amusement Corp.
186 Misc. 280 (New York Supreme Court, 1945)
Paine Lumber Co. v. Neal
244 U.S. 459 (Supreme Court, 1917)
Gill Engraving Co. v. Doerr
214 F. 111 (S.D. New York, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
214 F. 82, 130 C.C.A. 522, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paine-lumber-co-v-neal-ca2-1914.