Murry Dulberg, Defendant-appellant and Plaintiff-appellant, v. Scovill Manufacturing Company, the Eyelet Specialty Company,the Bridgeport Metal Goods, Mfg. Co., the Risdonmanufacturing Company, Plaintiff-appellees, and Elizabetharden Sales Corporation, Defendant-appellee, 290 F.2d 821 (2d Cir. 1961)
Annotate this CaseEmery, Whittemore, Sandoe & Graham, New York City (Nichol M. Sandoe, Hugo M. Wikstrom, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee, Scovill Mfg. Co.
Mitchell & Bechert, New York City (Roy C. Hopgood, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee, Eyelet Specialty Co.
Pennie, Edmonds, Morton, Barrows & Taylor, New York City (Thomas F. Reddy, Jr., John T. Farley, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee, Bridgeport Metal Goods, Mfg. Co.
Morgan, Finnegan, Durham & Pine, New York City (George B. Finnegan, Jr., Jerome G. Lee, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee, Risdon, Mfg. Co., and for defendant-appellee, Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.
Before WATERMAN, MOORE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
After a lengthy trial the district judge filed an exhaustive opinion containing his findings of fact and conclusions of law, 194 F. Supp. 165. On appeal was have carefully examined the massive record and the unusual quantity of exhibits and find no error in the result reached below. We affirm on the opinion of the trial judge.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
