Case Name: F. PALICIO Y COMPANIA, S. A., Cifuentes Y Compania, Por Larranaga, S. A., Menendez, Garcia Y Compania, Limitada, and Tabacalera Jose L. Piedra, S. A., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellees, v. Gilbert P. BRUSH and Monroe Percy Bloch, co-partners, doing business under the firm name and style of Brush & Bloch, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1967-04-26
Citations: 375 F.2d 1011
Docket Number: No. 415, Docket 30984
Parties: F. PALICIO Y COMPANIA, S. A., Cifuentes Y Compania, Por Larranaga, S. A., Menendez, Garcia Y Compania, Limitada, and Tabacalera Jose L. Piedra, S. A., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellees, v. Gilbert P. BRUSH and Monroe Percy Bloch, co-partners, doing business under the firm name and style of Brush & Bloch, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 375
Pages: 1011–1011

Head Matter:
F. PALICIO Y COMPANIA, S. A., Cifuentes Y Compania, Por Larranaga, S. A., Menendez, Garcia Y Compania, Limitada, and Tabacalera Jose L. Piedra, S. A., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellees, v. Gilbert P. BRUSH and Monroe Percy Bloch, co-partners, doing business under the firm name and style of Brush & Bloch, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees.
No. 415, Docket 30984.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued April 17, 1967.
Decided April 26, 1967.
Leonard B. Boudin, New York City (Rabinowitz & Boudin, New York City, Victor Rabinowitz, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff s-appellants-ap-pellees.
Jac M. Wolff, New York City (Brush & Bloch, New York City, Monroe Percy Bloch, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellants-appellees.
Before MOORE, KAUFMAN and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Having considered the various points raised by plaintiffs-appellants-appellees and defendants-appellants-appellees, we are of the opinion that Judge Bryan's discussion of the facts and his analysis and application of the law are correct; we therefore affirm on the basis of his well reasoned opinion reported at 256 F.Supp. 481 (S.D.N.Y.1966).