Devlin v. . Devlin
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Caswell v. . Hazard (N.Y. 1890)
- John B. Stetson Co. v. Stephen L. Stetson Co. (2d Cir. 1942)
- Hugo Stein Cloak Co. v. S. B. Stein & Son, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 1937)
- Walters v. Reinhoudt (New York Supreme Court 1927)
- Lerner Stores Corp. v. Lerner Ladies Apparel Shop, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1926)
- Stephen Merritt Burial & Cremation Co. v. Stephen Merritt Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1913)
- Danziger v. Gottlieb (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1913)
- World's Dispensary Medical Ass'n v. Pierce (N.Y. 1911)
- Kaufman v. Kaufman (New York Supreme Court 1910)
- Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks of the United States of America v. Improved Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks of the World (Tenn. 1909)
- Hildreth v. McCaul (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1902)
- Church v. Kresner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1898)
- Church v. Kresner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1898)
- Priestley v. Adams (New York Supreme Court 1891)
- Scott Stamp & Coin Co. v. J. W. Scott Co. (Superior Court of New York 1890)
- Scott Stamp & Coin Co. v. J. W. Scott Co. (The Superior Court of New York City 1890)
- Bronk v. Riley (New York Supreme Court 1888)
- N. Y. Cab Co. v. Mooney (New York Supreme Court 1884)
- New York, Lake Erie & Western Railway Co. v. Board of Supervisors (New York Supreme Court 1882)
- William Rogers Manuf'g Co. v. Rogers & Spurr Manuf'g Co. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1882)
- Smith v. Cooper (New York City Court 1877)
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
Both the Special and General Terms have decided that the words and letters on the altered sign are so arranged as to deceive the public, and were so intended. The initial letters “ J. S.” being placed over the word Devlin, and flanked by the No. of the store of defendant, it is said violates the injunction not to use the defendant’s Christian and surname, in a manner calculated to deceive, and requiring that they must be conjoined. The facts will *215 justify this inference and in such a case the general rule is fur this court to adopt the conclusions of the court below. The initials are not strictly conjoined to the surname, and it is probable that “ Devlin’s clothing” is still the distinguishing feature of the sign which the defendant was forbidden to use, and that from the situation of the initials between the figures on the top of the sign they would not or might not be understood to have been intended as a part of the name. The defendant may have intended to comply with the injunction, but the courts below think that he has failed to do so, and within the rule adverted to we feel constrained to follow their finding of fact, but as we concur with the learned judge, who delivered the opinion at General Term, that the decision “ sails very close to the wind,” we are inclined to affirm the order without costs to either party as against the other in this court.
All concur except Earl, J., dissenting.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.