Case Name: WELLS & RICHARDSON CO. v. ABRAHAM et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1906-11-19
Citations: 149 F. 408
Docket Number: No. 173
Parties: WELLS & RICHARDSON CO. v. ABRAHAM et al.
Judges: Before WALLACE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 149
Pages: 408–409

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.