Seastream v. New Jersey Exhibition Co.
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On order to show cause why August Seastream, Benjamin T. Haagenson, Howard Griffiths, William Davis and another should not be adjudged guilty of a contempt of the court of chancery, for attempting to improperly influence the due administration of justice therein.
1Opinion of the Court
Magie, Ci-iancellok.
The bill in this cause was filed by August Seastream and Charles C. Alexander, as complainants for themselves and other residents of the city of Bayonne, against “The New Jersey Exhibition Company,” a corporation of this state. Its purpose as indicated by its prayer was, among other things, to obtain an injunction restraining the company from permitting the playing of baseball or other sports upon grounds occupied by it in Bayonne, on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.
The bill, when filed, was presented to the Hon. Henry C. Pitney, one of the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Merchants' Stock & Grain Co. v. Board of Trade of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1912
- In Re CarubaNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1947
- State v. GussmanNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1955
- In Re JibbNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1937
- (DP) Tobin v. DavisDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.