The Utility Co., Inc. v. Larkin Soap Co., Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

The Utility Co., Inc. v. Larkin Soap Co., Inc.

187 A. 136, 121 N.J. Eq. 94

DecidedOctober 5, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A. 136 (The Utility Co., Inc. v. Larkin Soap Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Utility Co., Inc. v. Larkin Soap Co., Inc., 187 A. 136, 121 N.J. Eq. 94 (N.J. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a final decree of the court of chancery dismissing, on the merits, the bill of complaint filed in the cause.

Appellant sought to enjoin respondents from engaging in the business of manufacture and sale of a certain product, which it was alleged, was similar to a product manufactured and sold by appellant, the theory of the case being that respondents were engaging in piracy of appellant’s business. The learned vice-chancellor, before whom the issue was tried, concluded at the close of the case that defendants were not guilty of any piracy of the business of appellant, but that they were engaged in proper competition and advised the decree dismissing the bill.

A careful examination of the record and of the authorities cited by appellant upon the argument and in its brief, satisfies us that the conclusions arrived at in the court below are correct.

The decree appealed from is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Heher, Heteield, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Kae-EERTY, JJ. 10. For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a final decree of the court of chancery dismissing, on the merits, the bill of complaint filed in the cause.

Appellant sought to enjoin respondents from engaging in the business of manufacture and sale of a certain product, which it was alleged, was similar to a product manufactured and sold by appellant, the theory of the case being that respondents were engaging in piracy of appellant’s business. The learned vice-chancellor, before whom the issue was tried, concluded at the close of the case that defendants were not guilty of any piracy of the business of appellant, but that they were engaged in proper competition and advised the decree dismissing the bill.

A careful examination of the record and of the authorities cited by appellant upon the argument and in its brief, satisfies us that the conclusions arrived at in the court below are correct.

The decree appealed from is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Heher, Heteield, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Kae-EERTY, JJ. 10. For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A. 136, 121 N.J. Eq. 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-utility-co-inc-v-larkin-soap-co-inc-nj-1936.