Case Name: CENTRAL TRUST CO. v. CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF ILLINOIS et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1907-02-05
Citations: 152 F. 427
Docket Number: No. 1,344
Parties: CENTRAL TRUST CO. v. CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF ILLINOIS et al.
Judges: Before GROSSCUP, BAKER, and SEAMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 152
Pages: 427–427

Head Matter:
CENTRAL TRUST CO. v. CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF ILLINOIS et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals. Seventh Circuit.
February 5, 1907.)
No. 1,344.
Post Office — Delivery oi' Mail — Similarity of Names of Corporations.
A decree aflirmed which denied an injunction to a corporation to restrain the delivery of mail to defendant having a similar name, when so addressed that it might have been intended for either party; there being no claim of an intentional refusal to deliver to complainant mail so addressed to its business rooms or otherwise as to leave no doubt as to the identity of the addressee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States lor the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.
For opinion below, sec 149 Fed. 789.
Daniel McCaskill and O. E. McCaskill, for appellant.
Max Pam, Harry B. Hurd, and Hugo Pam, for appellee.
Before GROSSCUP, BAKER, and SEAMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
From our affirming the decree without repeating or enlarging upon the views orally expressed at the argument, the parties must not infer that we sanction the delivery to the appellee company of mail so specifically addressed to appellant's business rooms that no doubt can exist as to the identity of the addressee. Appellant's bill, in our opinion, is bottomed on its asserted right to have delivered to it all mail addressed "Central Trust Company, Chicago, Illinois." There is no allegation of the postmaster's refusal to deliver to appellant the mail specifically addressed to its business rooms. An injunction should not issue on the bare fact that such mail may inadvertently have been delivered to the appellee company. In such instances the appellee company should at once return that mail unopened to the postmaster for prompt delivery to appellant.
The decree is affirmed.