Case ID: f_279/html/1016-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ANDREW JERGENS CO., v. WOODBURY, Inc., et al.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    February 24, 1922.
    Rehearing Denied May 12, 1922.)
    No. 2744.
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Delaware; Hugh M. Morris, Judge. Suit by the Andrew Jergens_Company against Woodbury, Incorporated, and others. From a decree dismissing the )ill (273 Fed. 952), plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Thomas F. Bayard, of Wilnington, Del., Winter & Winter, of New York City, and De Camp, Sutphin & Brumleve, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant. Marvin & Pleasants and John lobert Taylor, all o,f New York City (Samuel A. Pleasants, of New York City, )f counsel), for appellees.
    Before BUFFINGTON, WOODLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

This case, one to enjoin alleged trade-mark infringement md unfair competition, was heard by the judge below, who later filed an opinion, found at 273 Fed. 952, followed by a decree dismissing the bill. The questions involved are mainly ones of fact growing out of the business dealings, jontracts and litigations extending over years. Those questions concern the oarties alone, and a detail of them by this court in another opinion and the burden and expense placed on the legal profession by the ensuing publication thereof in the reports, warrant our confining ourselves to saying we find no error in the court’s action. Its opinion evidences such patient and thorough study, so accurate knowledge of details, and such sound and justified conclusions, that the litigants are assured their proofs, rights, and contentions were riven by the judge below in his opinion, and by the court above, which now approves of it, that thorough consideration litigants are entitled to have in courts of justice. Limiting ourselves to this brief statement, the decree below Is now affirmed by this court.