Connecticut Superior Court, 1936

Johnson Wholesale Perfume Co. v. Schwartz

Johnson Wholesale Perfume Co. v. Schwartz
Connecticut Superior Court · Decided December 18, 1936 · Jennings
4 Conn. Supp. 356; 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 220

Counsel

Levy & Levy, Attorneys for the Plaintiff., Edward A. Mag, Attorney for the Defendants.

Johnson Wholesale Perfume Co. v. Schwartz

Opinion of the Court

JENNINGS, J.

The allegation sought to be expunged goes to the heart of the defense. This motion is limited in scope, its use is not encouraged and it should be applied only when the defect is plain.

Whitney vs. Cady, 71 Conn. 166, 171.

Bitello vs. Lipson, 80 Conn. 497, 503.

Donovan vs. Davis, 85 Conn. 394, 398.

Warner vs. Railroad, 86 Conn. 561, 566.

*357The citations from Nims on Unfair Competition seem to indicate that the defense attacked would be good even on demurrer. See pages 825, 826, 977-981.

The motion is denied.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.