¶1I cannot agree with my colleagues in the disposition made of this case, because I am of opinion that the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to justify a judgment for the defendant should be examined and determined. I think a specification of error to the effect that the court erred in rendering judgment ought to raise the question, in the absence of special findings, of the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the entry of judgment for the defendant. Of course, if there are special findings, a direct attack must be made upon them. In this case the defendant, not having tendered special findings, waived his right to restrict the inquiry in this regard.
42 Mont. 507
Esselstyn v. Holmes
Decided January 24, 1911
Montana Supreme Court · decided 1911-01-24
Miller Smith, Judge. Action by E. E. Esselstyn to enjoin George B. Holmes from using a certain trade name in the sale of coal handled by him. Defendant had judgment, and plaintiff appeals. A competitor in trade will be enjoined from using a name or designation for a product which had theretofore been adopted and used by another, and under which a business had been built up and a demand created for such product under such designation.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1911-01-24
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 2008
10 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →