Lowell Lamb & Co. v. Herskovits
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, Lowell Lamb & Company, Inc., from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 17th day of April, 1920, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term dismissing the complaint.
1Opinion of the Court
Finch, J.:
Lowell Lamb adopted, and for many years has used, the walking animal sign in conjunction with the words, “We are going to Lowell Lamb to be assorted, where our value will be appreciated.” This sign was used by Lowell Lamb while in business for himself individually, and also while doing business as, or connected with, the Trappers and Shippers Company. The same sign was also *408used when Lowell Lamb was in the employ of the defendant Herskovits. On the reverse side of the sign was printed the address to which the furs were to be sent, which varied according to where Lowell Lamb was then…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cutter v. . Gudebrod Brothers Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Hetterman Bros. v. PowersCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1897
- Strasser v. . MoonelisNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Cutter v. Gudebrod Bros.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
- Wheeler Syndicate, Inc. v. Star Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rick v. BuchanskyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1985