Trow Directory Printing & Bookbinding Co. v. United States Directory Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Trow Directory Printing & Bookbinding Co. v. United States Directory Co.

122 F. 191, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5410

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided January 2, 1903·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

EACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The duplication of erroneous names and addresses which was disclosed by the moving papers presented a prima facie case, which called for the fullest explanation. The explanation given in these voluminous affidavits does not fairly meet the case. It is vague, incomplete, unsatisfactory, and, in view of the rebutting affidavits, apparently in part untruthful. There is much reference in the affidavits to “original canvass,” but very little to indicate what it is. There is nothing to show sufficiently what individual in the employ of defendant was responsible for reproducing complainant’s errors and “catch names” in defendant’s book—no effort even to show how much of defendant’s book that individual contributed. The taint of the dozen instances cited affects the whole book, until the methods of its construction ’are more fully displayed. The failure to present a copy of defendant’s book, even folded and stitched, is a suspicious circumstance, as was the destruction of “copy” in the Chicago case (recently decided) 122 Fed. 189.

Upon complainant’s giving a bond in the amount of $5,000, injunction will be continued till final hearing, but it should be restricted to the New York section of defendants’ directory.

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

EACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The duplication of erroneous names and addresses which was disclosed by the moving papers presented a prima facie case, which called for the fullest explanation. The explanation given in these voluminous affidavits does not fairly meet the case. It is vague, incomplete, unsatisfactory, and, in view of the rebutting affidavits, apparently in part untruthful. There is much reference in the affidavits to “original canvass,” but very little to indicate what it is. There is nothing to show sufficiently what individual in the employ of defendant was responsible for reproducing complainant’s errors and “catch names” in defendant’s book—no effort even to show how much of defendant’s book that individual contributed. The taint of the dozen instances cited affects the whole book, until the methods of its construction ’are more fully displayed. The failure to present a copy of defendant’s book, even folded and stitched, is a suspicious circumstance, as was the destruction of “copy” in the Chicago case (recently decided) 122 Fed. 189.

Upon complainant’s giving a bond in the amount of $5,000, injunction will be continued till final hearing, but it should be restricted to the New York section of defendants’ directory.

Trow Directory Printing & Bookbinding Co. v. United States Directory Co., 122 F. 191, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5410 (circtsdny 1903).

Pincite

122 F. 191 (Trow Directory Printing & Bookbinding Co. v. United States Directory Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related