TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ainsworth v. Cooper Underwear Co.

William A. Ainsworth, Doing Business under the Name and Style of Ainsworth Dyeing Machine Company v. Cooper Underwear Company

Ainsworth v. Cooper Underwear Co., 227 A.D. 837 (1929)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 15, 1929
Citations
227 A.D. 837

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The examination sought is material and necessary to enable defendant to establish the defense pleaded. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 288.) The defense, if established, is a valid one under section 3 of the Clayton Act (38 U. S. Stat. 731). * We reverse the order vacating the notice of examination. However, we modify that notice by striking out paragraphs numbered 5 and 6. The portion of the order appealed from which denies defendant’s countermotion is reversed, and the motion is granted except that the portion of the new order corresponding with paragraph (1) of defendant’s notice of countermotion should read as follows: “ that the scope of the plaintiff’s examination be extended so that all information be given by the plaintiff from a date which shall be six months before the date of the first lease entered into between plaintiff and defendant containing the following provision, to wit: ‘ we will not manufacture or use any other machines or method for random dyeing yarns during the life of this lease except those now in use in our mills.’ ” We grant defendant’s countermotion for the production of books and papers for the reason that such production for the purposes indicated in the notice of countermotion will be “ pursuant to an order.” (Civ. Prac. Act, § 296.) We grant no costs of this appeal. All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Crouch, Taylor, Thompson and Crosby, JJ. Order modified in accordance with the opinion and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.

Now U. S. Code, tit. 15, § 14.— [Rep.

How later courts describe this case

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

1937: 11946: 11952: 11953: 11963: 119372026peak 1937 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. General Aniline & Film Corp. v. Bayer Co.113 N.E.2d 844 (N.Y. 1953)
  2. Remington Rand, Inc. v. International Business Machine Corp.167 Misc. 108 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1937)
  3. General Aniline & Film Corp. v. Bayer Co.188 Misc. 929 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1946)
  4. Jendrasik v. South Buffalo Railway Co.279 A.D. 979 (1952)
  5. 180 Tenants Corp. v. Ungar40 Misc. 2d 463 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1963)

Most recent

  1. 180 Tenants Corp. v. Ungar40 Misc. 2d 463 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1963)
  2. General Aniline & Film Corp. v. Bayer Co.113 N.E.2d 844 (N.Y. 1953)
  3. Jendrasik v. South Buffalo Railway Co.279 A.D. 979 (1952)
  4. General Aniline & Film Corp. v. Bayer Co.188 Misc. 929 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1946)
  5. Remington Rand, Inc. v. International Business Machine Corp.167 Misc. 108 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1937)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on 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