William H. Rankin Co. v. Associated Bill Posters of United States & Canada
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
The plaintiffs will be called Rankin and Ramsay, respectively. The business of Rankin comprised soliciting and placing advertising in newspapers, magazines, and street ears, as well as on billboards and other structures on which it eould be displayed out of doors. Ramsay solicited and placed bill posting and painted display advertising exclusively. Neither owned or controlled any billboards.
Read the full summary
The plaintiffs will be called Rankin and Ramsay, respectively. The business of Rankin comprised soliciting and placing advertising in newspapers, magazines, and street ears, as well as on billboards and other structures on which it eould be displayed out of doors. Ramsay solicited and placed bill posting and painted display advertising exclusively. Neither owned or controlled any billboards. The corporate defendant was organized in 1891, and under different names has since succeeded in enlisting in its membership owners of billboards throughout- the United States and Canada to such an extent…
1Opinion of the CourtChase, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
Much of the argument contained in the rather voluminous briefs filed, though ostensibly made "on the question of sufficiency of proof, is directed to what has already been decided by the Supreme Court in Ramsay v. Bill Posters, supra. It should be needless to point out that it is idle to ask us now to discuss the sufficiency of these complaints, for the defendants are bound to regard that as established, and so are we. United States Trust Co. v. New Mexico, 183 U. S. 535, 539, 540, 22 S. Ct. 172, 46 L. Ed. 315. What is now open relates to the adequacy of the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Materials Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Montague & Co. v. LowrySupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Straus v. Victor Talking Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
- City of Atlanta v. Chattanooga Foundry & PipeworksCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1903
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. HumbleSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- The Flintkote Company, a Corporation v. Elmer Lysfjord and Walter R. Waldron, Doing Business as Aabeta Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
- Herman Schwabe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Farmington Dowel Products Co. v. Forster Mfg. Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1970
- Ring v. SpinaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Graphic Products Distributors, Inc. v. Itek Corporation, Individually and D/B/A Itek Graphic Products, DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.