Rubber & Celluloid Harness Trimming Co. v. Rubber-Bound Brush Co.
88 A. 210, 81 N.J. Eq. 519, 1913 N.J. LEXIS 344
Opinion
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court of chancery by Vice-Chan-' cellor Howell.
[520] For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Bogert, Vredenburgi-i, White, Heppenheimer, Terhune — 13.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rubber & Celluloid Harness Trimming Co. v. Rubber-Bound Brush Co., 88 A. 210, 81 N.J. Eq. 519, 1913 N.J. LEXIS 344 (N.J. 1913).
88 A. 210 (Rubber & Celluloid Harness Trimming Co. v. Rubber-Bound Brush Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Pharmacia Corp. v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc.
201 F. Supp. 2d 335 (D. New Jersey, 2002)
Morgenstern Chemical Company, Inc. v. G. D. Searle & Company
253 F.2d 390 (Third Circuit, 1958)
American Shops, Inc. v. AM. FASHION, & C., INC.
80 A.2d 575 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1951)
Weiss v. the Stork Gift Shop
45 A.2d 688 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1946)
Bernstein v. Friedman
160 P.2d 227 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1945)
George W. Luft Co. v. Zande Cosmetic Co.
48 F. Supp. 602 (S.D. New York, 1942)
Rubber & Celluloid Harness Trimming Co. v. F. W. Devoe & C. T. Reynolds Co.
233 F. 150 (D. New Jersey, 1916)