Stockton ex rel. Miller v. American Tobacco Co.
New Jersey Court of Chancery
This suit is brought for the purpose of restraining the defendants from transacting their business, and from conducting it in a manner prejudicial to the complainants and injurious to the people of the State of New Jersey.
Read the full summary
This suit is brought for the purpose of restraining the defendants from transacting their business, and from conducting it in a manner prejudicial to the complainants and injurious to the people of the State of New Jersey. The bill sets out that for many years prior to January 21st, 1890, William S. Kimball and James T. Hart, under the firm name of W. S. Kimball & Company, of Rochester, New York ; Charles G. Emery, under the firm name of Goodwin & Company, of the State of New York; Allen & Ginter, a corporation of the State of "Virginia; W. Duke’s Sons & Company, a corporation of the State of…
1Opinion of the Court
Reed, V. C.
The bill is filed for a double purpose. The attorney-general, as the representative of the people of the state, asks for an injunction restraining the defendants from doing that which it is alleged amounts to a public injury; and the relators ask for an injunction restraining the defendants from doing that which they allege inflicts upon them a special injury.
*361It is entirely settled that the bill may be maintained in both its aspects, or that it be maintained at the instance of the attorney-general and dismissed as to the relators. Attorney-General v. Cockermouth Local Board, L. R.…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- State of Penn. v. THE WHEELING &C. BRIDGE CO.Supreme Court of the United States · 1852
- People ex rel. Peabody v. Chicago Gas Trust Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1889
- City of Georgetown v. THE ALEXANDRIA CANAL COMPANY, &C.Supreme Court of the United States · 1838
- People v. North River Sugar Refining Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Craft v. McConoughyIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.