Legal Opinion

Fredricks v. Mayer

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided February 15, 1857PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Motion for injunction.

1Opinion of the Court

Hoffman, Justice.

The plaintiffs state themselves to be partners, doing business in Paris, as photographists, and in the city of New-York under the name of Charles D. Fredricks. That on the 2d of June., 1855, they entered into a written contract with the defendant Mayer, which is annexed to the complaint, and is as follows:—

“ Fredricks, Penabert & Le Blanc, photographists, 40 Rue Basse au Rempart, Paris, New-York and St. Louis, United States, of the first part, and Constant Mayer, artiste painter, of the second part, do hereby agree to the following, viz.:—
“Art. 1. Fredricks, Penabert & Le…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hamblin v. DinnefordNew York Court of Chancery · 1835
  2. De Rivafinoli v. CorsettiNew York Court of Chancery · 1833
  3. Sanquirico v. BenedettiNew York Supreme Court · 1847

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Iron Age Publishing Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1887
  2. Welty v. JacobsIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Cort v. LassardOregon Supreme Court · 1889
  4. McCaull v. BrahamU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1883
  5. Strobridge Lithographing Co. v. CraneNew York Supreme Court · 1890

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