U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1922

Andrew Jergens Co. v. Woodbury, Inc.

Andrew Jergens Co. v. Woodbury, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided February 24, 1922
279 F. 1016; 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1663

Counsel

Thomas F. Bayard, of Wilnington, Del., Winter & Winter, of New York City, and De Camp, Sutphin & Brumleve, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant. Marvin & Pleasants and John lobert Taylor, all o,f New York City (Samuel A. Pleasants, of New York City, )f counsel), for appellees.

Andrew Jergens Co. v. Woodbury, Inc.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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 case, one to enjoin alleged trade-mark infringement md unfair competition, was heard by the judge below, who later filed an opinion, found at 273 Fed. 952, followed by a decree dismissing the bill. The questions involved are mainly ones of fact growing out of the business dealings, jontracts and litigations extending over years. Those questions concern the oarties alone, and a detail of them by this court in another opinion and the burden and expense placed on the legal profession by the ensuing publication thereof in the reports, warrant our confining ourselves to saying we find no error in the court’s action. Its opinion evidences such patient and thorough study, so accurate knowledge of details, and such sound and justified conclusions, that the litigants are assured their proofs, rights, and contentions were riven by the judge below in his opinion, and by the court above, which now approves of it, that thorough consideration litigants are entitled to have in courts of justice. Limiting ourselves to this brief statement, the decree below Is now affirmed by this court.

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