Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Widrig
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Mandell, J. Assumpsit in justice’s court by the Prest-O-Lite Company against Arthur S. Widrig and others for fraudulent representations. Defendants appealed to the circuit court from a judgment for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error.
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
Plaintiff is. an Indiana corporation engaged in the manufacture of acetylene gas tanks for *231use in lighting automobiles. Defendant Arthur S. Widrig had been engaged at Detroit in the business Of manufacturing acetylene gas for, and refilling or recharging, empty tanks. Plaintiff claimed a proprietary right in the refilling of the tanks of its manufacture, and the right to prevent any other person from refilling any tanks it had sold, even at the request of the owner of the tank. Plaintiff filed a bill in equity in the United States court at Detroit, and obtained a temporary injunction against…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Daniels v. CleggMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
- Watkins v. FordMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Ritter v. DanielsMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- Applebaum v. GoldmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
- Stoflet v. MarkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Billig v. GoodrichMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Garber v. SprayWyoming Supreme Court · 1917
- Anderson Forge & Machine Co. v. Sterling Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1918