Grow v. Seligman
Michigan Supreme Court
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
- Connell v. ReedMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Meriden Britannia Co. v. ParkerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1872
- Wolfe v. . BurkeNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Taylor v. GilliesNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1874
3Cited by9 opinions
- J. L. Cooper & Co. v. Anchor Securities Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1941
- Williams v. FarrandMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Vonderbank v. SchmidtSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1892
- Colton v. DuvallMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
- Consolidated Amusement Co. v. HughesHawaii Supreme Court · 1915
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.