From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schimkevitz v. Bingham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 8, 1908
125 App. Div. 792 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)

Opinion

May 8, 1908.

Theodore Connoly, for the appellants.

Samuel Cohen, for the respondent.

Present — INGRAHAM, McLAUGHLIN, LAUGHLIN, CLARKE and SCOTT, JJ.


The question presented on this appeal is the same as that presented in the case of Shepard v. Bingham ( 125 App. Div. 784), decided herewith, and for the reasons there stated the order appealed from is reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion for an injunction denied, with ten dollars costs.


I concur in the reversal of the injunction order in this case upon the grounds stated in my concurring memorandum in Eden Musee American Co., Ltd., v. Bingham ( 125 App. Div. 780, 784), argued and decided herewith, which apply to facts here presented.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.


Summaries of

Schimkevitz v. Bingham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 8, 1908
125 App. Div. 792 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)
Case details for

Schimkevitz v. Bingham

Case Details

Full title:MAX SCHIMKEVITZ, Respondent, v . THEODORE A. BINGHAM, as Police…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 8, 1908

Citations

125 App. Div. 792 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)
110 N.Y.S. 219

Citing Cases

Strand Amusement Co. v. City of Owensboro

After reviewing a number of authorities, the editor of Ann. Cas. 1913B, at page 719, adds: "Somewhat…