Case ID: misc_2/html/0176-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Freedman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lowenbein v. Fuldner.
    (New York Superior Court
    General Term,
    January, 1893.)
    In an action to enjoin the violation of a contract, if the restriction imposed thereby is a reasonable one and not against public policy, and it is shown that the common law affords no adequate remedy, the equitable interposition of the court is justified, and an injunction should be granted.
    Appeal by defendant from interlocutory judgment and final judgment restraining him from making, selling or otherwise dealing in a certain sideboard.
   Freedman, J.

The action is brought to enjoin the violation by the defendant of the stipulations of a contract made between the parties, whereby the defendant engaged to manufacture for the plaintiffs, and not otherwise, a certain article of merchandise known as a sideboard of a certain character and description, according to a special and unique design, and certain working drawings furnished by the plaintiffs.

The restriction imposed by the contract upon the defendant is a reasonable one, and there is nothing in it which is against public policy. At the trial the plaintiffs brought their case fully within the principle of the decision of Saltus v. Belford Co., 133 N. Y. 499, and also satisfactorily showed that the common, law affords them no adequate remedy against the violations, actual and threatened, of the contract by the defendant.

Upon the whole case the equitable interposition of the court is fully justified, and the defendant stands properly enjoined.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Mcábam and Gildeksleeve, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.