Case ID: f_149/html/0408-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM. WALLACE, Circuit Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WELLS & RICHARDSON CO. v. ABRAHAM et al.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    November 19, 1906.)
    No. 173.
    Injunction — Grounds—Inducing Breach of Contracts.
    An order granting a preliminary injunction restraining defendants from inducing complainant’s customers to violate tbeir contracts by selling a proprietary medicine manufactured by complainant to defendants, contrary to tbe terms of their said contracts, considered, and affirmed.
    Wallace, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.
    For opinion below, see 146 Fed. 190.
    E. E. Wise, for appellants.
    F. S.' Reed, for appellee.
    Before WALLACE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.
   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.

WALLACE, Circuit Judge

(dissenting). I do not agree with the majority of the court that we are not authorized to pass upon the question of the jurisdiction of the court below. In Boston & Maine Railroad Co. v. Gokey (lately decided by this court) 149 Fed. 42, I have given the reasons why Í think the court should no longer adhere to its decisions in United States v. Lee Yen Tai, 113 Fed. 465, 51 C. C. A. 299, and Fisheries Co. v. Lennen, 130 Fed. 533, 65 C. C. A. 79. I think, however, that the bill shows, a case in which the requisite jurisdictional amount is involved. One of the rights sought to he protected by the complainant is its system of contracts, which is alleged to be of the value of more than $2,000, and the bill alleges that the acts of the defendant which are complained of are destructive thereof.