Wells & Richardson Co. v. Abraham

149 F. 408, 79 C.C.A. 228, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4484
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided November 19, 1906·No. No. 173·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The assignments of error do not require us to decide whether the terms of the injunction are broader than the case warrants. The fifteenth assignment is the only one directed to the point, and does not specify any particulars in which the terms are too broad. Eor reasons stated on the argument, we are of the opinion that we are not authorized to pass upon the question of jurisdiction presented.

Upon the principal question argued we are not convinced of the unsoundness of the conclusions of Judge Thomas as expressed in his opinion in the court below, and see no reason for departing from our usual custom not to formulate an extended opinion on appeals from orders for preliminary injunctions where we affirm the court below, unless we disapprove the reasoning of its opinion.

The order is affirmed.

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

Wells & Richardson Co. v. Abraham, 149 F. 408, 79 C.C.A. 228, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4484 (2d Cir. 1906).

149 F. 408 (Wells & Richardson Co. v. Abraham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sunbeam Corporation v. Masters of Miami, Inc.
225 F.2d 191 (Fifth Circuit, 1955)
Sunbeam Corp. v. Economy Distributing Co.
131 F. Supp. 791 (E.D. Michigan, 1955)
B. V. D. Co. v. Isaac
257 F. 709 (Sixth Circuit, 1919)
New Jersey Patent Co. v. Schaeffer
159 F. 171 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1908)