Williams v. Farrand
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Wayne. (Reilly, J.) Bill to restrain the defendants from using any combination of the names Farrand and Williams as part of' their firm name. Complainants appeal. The facts are stated in the opinions.
1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.
Complainants and defendants had beem for some years engaged as wholesale druggists on Darned street east, in the city of Detroit, as copartners, under-the name and style of Farrand, Williams & Co. There were no articles of copartnership, and no term fixed lorwhich the partnership was to continue.
Prior to the taking of the annual inventory in January,.. 1890, defendant Jacob S. Farrand expressed to complainant Sheley a desire to dissolve the copartnership... Mr. Sheley declined to say anything until the annual, inventory should be taken, and the business of the year-settled up. On the 25th of…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Manufacturing Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Holmes, Booth & Haydens v. Holmes, Booth & Atwood Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1870
- Meneely v. . MeneelyNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Russia Cement Co. v. LePageMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Hoxie v. ChaneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- J. L. Cooper & Co. v. Anchor Securities Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1941
- The Children's Bootery v. SutkerSupreme Court of Florida · 1926
- Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias v. Improved Order Knights of PythiasMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Falk v. . American West Indies Trading Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Allegretti v. Allegretti Chocolate Cream Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1898
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.