Legal Opinion
Hiram Walker & Sons, Ltd. v. Mikolas
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota
Decided April 8, 1897PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LOCHREN, District Judge.
Hearing was had at the court room in the federal building in the city of Minneapolis, in said district, on Saturday, the 39th day of December, 1898, upon the order requiring the defendants above named to show cause why they should not be restrained during the pendency of this action as prayed in the bill of complaint and set forth in the order to show cause. Both parties appeared by counsel, and were heard. From the showing presented, it appears that the complainant, since its incoi'poration, in 1890, and Hie partnership of Hiram Walker & Sons, its predecessor prior to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- N. K. Fairbank Co. v. R. W. Bell Manuf'g Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1896
- Schieffelin v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1898
3Cited by4 opinions
- Coalgate Abstract Co. v. Coal County Abstract Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
- Nesne v. SundetSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- Liebig's Extract of Meat Co. v. WalkerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1902
- Moore v. Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1900