Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Louis HURWITZ, Trading as United Postcard Supply Company, Appellant, v. J. Frank MEYER, Trading as the Exhibit Supply Company, Appellee, 1926 — 10 F.2d 1019 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Louis HURWITZ, Trading as United Postcard Supply Company, Appellant, v. J. Frank MEYER, Trading as the Exhibit Supply Company, Appellee
10 F.2d 1019·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1926
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Louis HURWITZ, Trading as United Postcard Supply Company, Appellant, v. J. Frank MEYER, Trading as the Exhibit Supply Company, Appellee.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
February 23, 1926.)
No. 3371.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Thompson, Judge.
For opinion below, see 5 F.(2d) 370.
Thomas C. Egan, John M. Patterson, and Wolf, Patterson, Block & Schorr, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Kennard N. Ware, Charles H. Howson, Howson & Howson, and Robert T. McCracken, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
On presentation of affidavits and after hearing the parties, the court below granted a preliminary injunction, the effect of which is to preserve the status in quo and prevent any further alleged injury to the plaintiff’s current business. After due consideration had, we find no ground for convicting the court of error in so doing, as it has, in its opinion, sufficiently vindicated its present action at this stage of the case.
The appeal is therefore dismissed, at the appellant’s cost.