Moxie Nerve Food Co. of New England v. Holland
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island
In Equity. On complainant’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and on defendant’s motion to dismiss bill for want of equity.
1Opinion of the Court
BROWN, District Judge.
The complainant has sufficiently proved the unlawful substitution of “Modox” for “Moxie,” and is entitled to a preliminary injunction, unless guilty of such fraudulent misrepresentation to the public as to disentitle it to the assistance of a court of equity under the principles set forth in Worden v. California Fig Syrup Co., 187 U. S. 516, 23 Sup. Ct. 161, 47 L. Ed. 282.
The defendant charges fraud in various particulars, only two of which require attention: (1) Statements as to the ingredients of Moxie; and (2) statements as to its curative powers.
Evidence is offered…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Jacobson v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnultySupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Worden v. California Fig Syrup Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Deweese v. ReinhardSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Commonwealth v. PearMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Smith v. Holdoway Construction Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1939
- Hyde Park Amusement Co. v. MoglerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1948
- Moxie Nerve Food Co. v. Modox Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1907
- Moxie Nerve Food Co. v. Modox Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1907