Case ID: f_221/html/0512-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THOMAS, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SPERRY & HUTCHINSON CO. v. BENJAMIN et al.
    (Circuit Court, E. D. New York.
    March 27, 1905.)
    Injunction <§=137—Preliminary Injunction—Defective Pleadings.
    Where, on the facts shown, complainant Is entitled to a preliminary injunction, a motion therefor will not be denied on the ground that the bill is multifarious) no demurrer having been interposed.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. §§ 307-309; Dec. Dig. <§=137J
    In Equity. Suit by the Sperry & Hutchinson Company against Benjamin Benjamin and others. On motion for preliminary injunction.
    Granted.
    John Hall Jones, of New York City, for complainant.
    Monfort & Faber, of Jamaica, N. Y., and Eouis A. Seitz, of New York City, for certain defendants.
    <@=>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
   THOMAS, District Judge.

An injunction against all the defendants is demanded, both by reason and by the authority of former decisions. The only doubt arises from the objection that the bill is multifarious; but such an objection, unless raised by demurrer, is waived, and the court cannot anticipate that demurrer upon such ground will be interposed.

Where a defendant is, or claims to be, under contract with the complainant, he will not be enjoined from selling stamps tha!t he has obtained from complainant for the purposes of the contract; but this will not justify his using stamps procured from other sources. Moreover, persons who purchased stamps from Donahue, under the belief that he was authorized to sell the same, are not restrained from, using such stamps.

An order drawn pursuant to these views may be presented on notice.