Legal Opinion

Grow v. Seligman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 25, 1882PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Appeal from Bay. ' Injunction. Defendants appeal.

1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.

The complainants in this suit constitute the firm of Grow Brothers, doing business as wholesale and retail dealers in ready-made clothing at Bay City. In their bill in this cause they state that previous to the year 1872 the defendant Jacob Seligman was a retail dealer in ready-made clothing at Bay City, carrying it on under the name and style of “Little Jake,” and complainants were clerks, for him; that in that year complainants purchased of him the said business, and also purchased the right to use the name and style of “ Little Jake ” in carrying on and advertising the said business, and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Connell v. ReedMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
  2. Meriden Britannia Co. v. ParkerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1872
  3. Wolfe v. . BurkeNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
  4. Taylor v. GilliesNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1874

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. J. L. Cooper & Co. v. Anchor Securities Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Williams v. FarrandMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Vonderbank v. SchmidtSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1892
  4. Colton v. DuvallMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Consolidated Amusement Co. v. HughesHawaii Supreme Court · 1915

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API