Sterrick v. Pugsley
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan
On motion of complainant [Charles V. Ster-rick] for a preliminary injunction to restrain defendants [James W. Pugsley and others] from using a deed of assignment of a patent by complainant to defendant Pugsley, and from claiming or exercising any rights thereunder.
1Opinion of the Court
LONGYEAR, District Judge.
Some preliminary objections will be first noticed. The defendants’ counsel objected to the bill of complaint being read on the grounds: 1st — That the entitling of the court is not “in equity,” but of the “circuit court,” etc., merely. 2d— That it is entitled in the cause.
The address of the bill is to the “circuit court,” etc., “in chancery sitting.” This is sufficient, and if the entitling of the court were of any consequence the court would direct it to be amended by adding the words “in equity.” The bill is entitled in the cause. This is irregular, because until…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Benson v. MatsdorfNew York Supreme Court · 1807
- In re BronsonNew York Supreme Court · 1815
- Milliken v. SelyeNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Humphrey v. CandeNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- Hawley v. DonnellyNew York Court of Chancery · 1840