Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908

Schimkevitz v. Bingham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 8, 1908 · Laughlin

125 A.D. 792; 110 N.Y.S. 219; 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2896

Counsel

Theodore Connoly, for the appellants., Samuel Cohen, for the respondent.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Strand Amusement Co. v. City of Owensboro (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) 1932)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam :

The question presented on this appeal is the same as that presented in the casez of Shepard v. Bingham (125 App. Div. 784), decided herewith, and for the reasons there stated the order appealed from is reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion for an injunction denied, with ten dollars costs.

Present — Ingeaham, McLaughlin, Laughlin, Claeke and Scott, JJ.

Concurring Opinion

Laughlin, J. (concurring):

I concur in the reversal of the injunction order in this case upon the grounds stated in my concurring memorandum in Eden Musee American Co., Ltd., v. Bingham (125 App. Div, 780, 784), argued and decided herewith, which apply to facts here presented.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

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