Case ID: f2d_290/html/0821-01.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

Murray DULBERG, Defendant-Appellant and Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCOVILL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, The Eyelet Specialty Company, The Bridgeport Metal Goods Mfg. Co., The Risdon Manufacturing Company, Plaintiff-Appellees, and Elizabeth Arden Sales Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 326, Docket 26769.
    United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
    Argued April 18, 1961.
    Decided May 23, 1961.
    Murray Dulberg, pro se.
    Emery, Whittemore, Sandoe & Graham, New York City (Nichol M. Sandoe, Hugo M. Wikstrom, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee, Scovill Mfg. Co.
    Mitchell & Bechert, New York City (Roy C. Hopgood, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee, Eyelet Specialty Co.
    Pennie, Edmonds, Morton, Barrows & Taylor, New York City (Thomas F. Reddy, Jr., John T. Farley, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee, Bridgeport Metal Goods Mfg. Co.
    Morgan, Finnegan, Durham & Pine, New York City (George B. Finnegan, Jr., Jerome G. Lee, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee, Risdon Mfg. Co., and for defendant-appellee, Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.
    Before WATERMAN, MOORE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

After a lengthy trial the district judge filed an exhaustive opinion containing his findings of fact and conclusions of law, 194 F.Supp. 165. On appeal we have carefully examined the massive record and the unusual quantity of exhibits and find no error in the result reached below. We affirm on the opinion of the trial judge.