Legal Opinion

Car Advertising Co. v. New York City Car Advertising Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1907PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Motion for an injunction pendente lite.

1Opinion of the CourtGiegebich, J.

The plaintiff seeks an injunction pendente lite restraining the defendant from using the name “ New York City Car Advertising Company.” The facts are as follows: From 1891 until the summer of 1901 Henry Wineburgh, Jesse Wineburgh and Abraham Wineburgh, brothers, were the owners of the Railway Advertising Company, a corporation, and were engaged in the business of advertising in cars. Some time in 1900 or 1901 differences arose between Henry on the one hand and the other two on *106the other hand, and the former withdrew and organized the plaintiff corporation under the laws of the State of New…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Koehler v. . SandersNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Hygeia Water Ice Co. v. New York Hygeia Ice Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1893
  3. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. of KansasNew York Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Day v. WebsterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Title & Mortgage Guarantee Co. v. Louisiana Abstract & Title Guarantee Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1918
  2. Brown & Bigelow v. Remembrance Advertising Products, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1951

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API