Legal Opinion

Lautz v. Gordon

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York

Decided July 28, 1886PublishedCited by 8 opinions

In Equity.

1Opinion of the CourtWallace, J.

The demurrer to the cross-bill proceeds upon the ground that the facts alleged do not entitle the complainants in the cross-bill to any equitable relief, but are simply such as to authorize a recovery of damages for which there is an adequate remedy at law. The original bill was filed, as appears by the averments of the cross-bill, to restrain these complainants from violating the covenants of an agreement between the parties by which the present complainants undertook to operate certain patented apparatus and appliances in connection with their soap factory for the period of 10 years, and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ambler v. ChoteauSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  2. Woodman v. FreemanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1846
  3. Boardman v. JacksonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Harper Bros. v. KlawDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1916
  2. Armstrong v. MayerNebraska Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Bunel v. O'DayU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1903
  4. Wenzel & Henoch Const. Co. v. Metropolitan Water Dist.District Court, S.D. California · 1937
  5. Whittemore v. PattenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · 1897

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API