U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1901

Cortelyou v. Lowe

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided November 14, 1901

111 F. 1005; 49 C.C.A. 671; 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4459

Counsel

Joab 11. Banton, for, appellants., S. O. Edmonds, for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

Cortelyou v. Charles Eneu Johnson & Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York 1905)
Automatic Pencil Sharpener Co. v. Goldsmith Bros. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York 1911)
Winchester Repeating Arms Co. v. Olmsted (7th Cir. 1913)
Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Standard Brewery (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois 1909)
Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Mach. Co. (2d Cir. 1907)
Cortelyou v. Charles E. Johnson & Co. (2d Cir. 1906)
Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. Platt (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois 1906)
Hartman v. John D. Park & Sons Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky 1906)
Platt v. National Ass'n of Retail Druggists (Ill. Cir. Ct. 1905)
National Phonograph Co. v. Schlegel (8th Cir. 1904)
Brodrick Copygraph Co. v. Mayhew (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin 1904)
Rupp & Wittgenfeld Co. v. Elliott (6th Cir. 1904)
Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Fair (7th Cir. 1903)
Brodrick Copygraph Co. v. Roper (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island 1903)
A. B. Dick Co. v. Roper (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island 1903)
Edison Phonograph Co. v. Pike (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts 1902)

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.

This cause comes here on appeal from an order granting preliminary injunction. The case upon which the order was granted is in its facts practically identical with the one which was before the circuit court of appeals of the Sixth circuit in Heaton Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co., 25 C. C. A. 267, 77 Fed. 288, 35 L. R. A. 728. Wo fully agree with the opinion of the court in that case, and think the decision should control the case at bar. The order is affirmed, with costs.

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