Witkop & Holmes Co. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
New York Supreme Court
Action for an injunction to restrain defendant corporation from employing plaintiff’s drivers for the purpose of securing plaintiff’s trade and for damages.
1Opinion of the CourtPound, J.
The material facts and the law of this case, aside from the question of damages, are stated and discussed in Witkop & Holmes v. Boyce, 61 Misc. Rep. 126; 112 N. Y. Supp. 874; 64 Misc. Rep. 374; 118 N. Y. Supp. 461, and a restatement thereof is unnecessary. That was a case against the driver only. The competing corporation is also a party defendant to this action as is also its active manager in the transactions herein complained of.
The recent case of McCall Co. v. Wright, 198 N. Y. 143, sustains, I think, the reasoning of Wheeler, J., in the Boyce case, supra, as to the power >of the court…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McCall Co. v. . WrightNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Witkop v. BoyceNew York Supreme Court · 1908
- Witkop & Holmes Co. v. BoyceNew York Supreme Court · 1908
- Witkop & Holmes Co. v. BoyceNew York Supreme Court · 1909
3Cited by13 opinions
- Empire Steam Laundry v. LozierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Bush v. GaffneyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935
- Harry R. Defler Corp. v. KleemanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1963
- I. H. P. Corp. v. 210 Central Park South Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1962
- New Method Laundry Co. v. MacCannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.