TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The Comerma Company v. Comerma

The Comerma Company, Appellant, v. John Comerma Et Al., Respondents

The Comerma Co. v. Comerma, 122 N.E. 878 (N.Y. 1919)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 28, 1919
Citations
122 N.E. 878225 N.Y. 6761919 N.Y. LEXIS 1207
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial • department, entered July 15, 1918, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. The judgment enjoined the defendants from engaging in the construction of structures of flat tile and the class of tile work known as “ Guastavino Arches,” “ Spanish Tile Arches,” “ Cohesive Tile Arches,” “ Timbrel Vaults,” “ Timbrel Tile Construction ” or “ Comerma Tile Arches,” from making, using or vending any construction described in United States letters patent No. 947,177 issued January 18, 1910, to R. Guastavino, for improvements in masonry structures, which cover a certain type of masonry arch, and from making, using or vending any construction described in United States letters patent No. 1,119,543, issued December 1, 1914, to W. C. Sabine and R. Guastavino for a type of acoustic material for walls and ceilings, and adjudged that the plaintiff recover against defendants damages received by them as profits upon such prohibited , structures built by them. The Appellate Division, while leaving in the judgment the provision that the defendants were restrained from violating the contract of February 23, 1915, and from engaging in the construction of “ Guastavino Arches,” “ Spanish Tile Arches,” “ Cohesive Tile Arches,” “ Timbrel Vaults, ” “ Timbrel Tile Construction ” and “ Comerma Tile Arches,” struck out the provision in the judgment of the Special Term which enjoined the defendants from building the structures described in the two patents, and reduced the money judgment by eliminating damages with regard to these.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list