Suesskind v. Bingham

125 A.D. 787, 110 N.Y.S. 213, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2894
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 8, 1908·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinions

Ingraham, J.:

It is quite impossible to see upon what ground the police could claim that these plaintiffs were violating any statute upon the facts here presented. The same question is presented, however, as in the case of Eden Musee American Co., Ltd., v. Bingham (125 App. Div. 780), decided herewith, and plaintiff’s remedy is not by injunction, but by an action at law against the individual officers, or an indictment, if their property or business is interfered with.

The order appealed from is reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion for an injunction denied, with ten dollars costs.

McLaughlin, Glabke and Scott, JJ., concurred; Laughlin, J. dissented.

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

Suesskind v. Bingham, 125 A.D. 787, 110 N.Y.S. 213, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

125 A.D. 787 (Suesskind v. Bingham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Eisenberg v. Kennedy
8 Misc. 2d 980 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Greene v. Britt
183 Misc. 511 (New York Supreme Court, 1944)
Strand Amusement Co. v. City of Owensboro
47 S.W.2d 710 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1932)
Callision v. Kirkpatrick
1930 OK 431 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)
Stout v. Pardoe
1927 OK 285 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1927)
Star Co. v. Brush
104 Misc. 404 (New York Supreme Court, 1918)
Yorkville Amusement Co. v. Bingham
64 Misc. 636 (New York Supreme Court, 1909)
Fairmont Athletic Club v. Bingham
61 Misc. 419 (New York Supreme Court, 1908)
Fox v. Butler
60 Misc. 484 (New York Supreme Court, 1908)