Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Benjamin

221 F. 512, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 5231
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York·Decided March 27, 1905·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

THOMAS, District Judge.

An injunction against all the defendants is demanded, both by reason and by the authority of former decisions. The only doubt arises from the objection that the bill is multifarious; but such an objection, unless raised by demurrer, is waived, and the court cannot anticipate that demurrer upon such ground will be interposed.

Where a defendant is, or claims to be, under contract with the complainant, he will not be enjoined from selling stamps tha!t he has obtained from complainant for the purposes of the contract; but this will not justify his using stamps procured from other sources. Moreover, persons who purchased stamps from Donahue, under the belief that he was authorized to sell the same, are not restrained from, using such stamps.

An order drawn pursuant to these views may be presented on notice.

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

Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Benjamin, 221 F. 512, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 5231 (circtedny 1905).

221 F. 512 (Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Benjamin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Waring v. WDAS Broadcasting Station, Inc.
194 A. 631 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Waring v. WDAS Broadcasting Station, Inc.
27 Pa. D. & C. 297 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1936)
Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Fenster
219 F. 755 (E.D. New York, 1915)