Page:Houghton Mifflin v. Stackpole Sons (41 U.S.P.Q. 404).pdf/1

---

District Court, S. D. New York
Houghton Mifflin Company v. Stackpole Sons, Inc., et al.
No. 2-256 Decided Feb. 28, 1939

On motion for preliminary injunction.

Reversed at 42 USPQ 96.

Hines, Rearick, Dorr & Hammond, New York, N. Y., for plaintiff.

Philip Wittenberg, New York, N. Y., for defendants.

Coxe, District Judge.—I do not think that this case is sufficiently clear to warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The defendants have raised questions of title and validity [of the copyright] which are not free from doubt; the facts are in dispute; and the issues cannot properly be determined on affidavits. It may be that the plaintiff will succeed at the trial, but on the present showing I cannot say that it will do so with the degree of certainty required for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

The motion of the plaintiff for a preliminary injunction is denied.

---

District Court, S. D. New York
Ottinger v. General Motors Corporation
Equity No. 87-352 Decided Apr. 5, 1939

On motion for summary judgment.

Armand E. Lackenbach (Otto C. Sommerich and Raymond T. Heilpern of counsel) all of New York, N. Y., for plaintiff.

Drury W. Cooper (Thomas J. Byrne and Drury W. Cooper, Jr., of counsel) all of New York, N. Y., for defendant.

Leibell, District Judge.—This is a motion for summary judgment, under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff, a citizen and resident of New York, moved for summary judgment with respect to the first cause of action and for a partial summary judgment on the second cause of action, pleaded in the bill of complaint. Both