{ "id": 2852857, "name": "The Paddington Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Westville Bevverage Mart, Inc., Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Paddington Corp. v. Westville Bevverage Mart, Inc.", "decision_date": "1973-06-22", "docket_number": "No. 57314", "first_page": "555", "last_page": "558", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "12 Ill. App. 3d 555" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "122 F.Supp. 781", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 4246247 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/122/0781-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 F.2d 326", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 46602 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/221/0326-01" ] }, { "cite": "270 N.E.2d 200", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1955, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "205-206" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 Ill.App.2d 833", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2537388 ], "year": 1955, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "839-840" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/132/0833-01" ] }, { "cite": "350 U.S. 828", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12040776, 12040877, 12040590, 12040692, 12040822, 12040636, 12040732 ], "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/350/0828-05", "/us/350/0828-07", "/us/350/0828-01", "/us/350/0828-03", "/us/350/0828-06", "/us/350/0828-02", "/us/350/0828-04" ] }, { "cite": "221 F.2d 815", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 46705 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/221/0815-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 391, "char_count": 5727, "ocr_confidence": 0.764, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2419999461480763e-07, "percentile": 0.6081111292588873 }, "sha256": "d9443341123e688d5e5bae56913a8a6083e129c3d7b434c27aa3d92e21cd1473", "simhash": "1:0ca6f12c2d0e1057", "word_count": 910 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:56:16.526311+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The Paddington Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Westville Bevverage Mart, Inc., Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE LORENZ\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff Paddington Corporation filed a verified complaint for \u201ctemporary\u201d and permanent injunctions against Westville Beverage Mart, Inc., doing business as Foremost Liquors, alleging that defendant violated the Illinois Fair Trade Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 121\u00bd, secs. 188 \u2014 191.) The trial court refused to dissolve a preliminary injunction it had issued restraining defendant from advertising, offering for sale or selling plaintiff\u2019s products until the matter could be resolved on its merits. On appeal defendant contends only that the injunction is invalid because it is not specific as to its terms.\nPursuant to plaintiff\u2019s verified for \u201ctemporary\u201d injunction of which defendant was notified, the trial court entered a preliminary injunction in the following terms:\n\u201c[Defendant * * * its agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them are hereby enjoined and restrained, until such time as this case can be heard on the merits, or otherwise disposed of, from willfully and knowingly advertising, offering for sale or selling Pad-dington products, including but not limited to [naming one product], in Illinois, at less than the prices stipulated by plaintiff from time to time in any contract entered into pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Trade Act of the State of Illinois, which contracts at the time of filing of the complaint herein were, are now, and will hereafter be in force in Illinois relating to the sale or resale of any of said beverages in that State.\u201d\nAfter this injunction was entered, defendant filed a verified answer denying many of plaintiff\u2019s allegations. Defendant, with the court\u2019s permission, then filed a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. Defendant argued that the ex parte injunction was not clear and concise, did not inform defendant of the conduct enjoined, and failed to comply with section 3 \u2014 1 of the Injunction Act.\nThe plaintiff replied to defendant\u2019s motion denying defendant\u2019s allegations and stating that the Fair Trade Act authorizes plaintiff\u2019s action. After the parties briefed their positions, the court entered the following order:\n\u201c[T]hat the motion to dissolve the temporary injunction is denied, the Court basing its decision on the authority of Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. New Cut Rate Liquors, Inc., 221 F.2d 815 (7th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 828 (1955).\u201d\nand further ordered that the injunction remain in full force and effect according to its terms.\nOPINION\nDefendant contends only that the injunction is invalid because it is not specific as to its terms. Defendant argues that the trial court\u2019s failure to include the name of each Paddington product and its specific fair trade price renders the injunction invalid for lack of specificity. Defendant cites an Illinois decision (Ill. School Bus Co. v. South Sub. Safeway Lines (1971), 132 Ill.App.2d 833, 839-840, 270 N.E.2d 200, 205-206), and several federal cases including a fair trade case (Schwegmann Bros. G. S. Mkts. v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. (5th Cir. 1955), 221 F.2d 326, aff\u2019g Hoffmam-La Roche, Inc. v. Schwegmann Bros. G. S. Mkts. (E. D. La. 1954) 122 F.Supp. 781) which involved a fair trade act and an injunction sim\u00fcar to that involved in the instant case. Defendant further argues that the language of section 3 \u2014 1 of the Injunction Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 69, sec. 3 \u2014 1) is mandatory. That section provides that:\n\u201cEvery order granting an injunction and every restraining order shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shaU be specific in terms; shaU describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained; and is binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise.\u201d\nThis section derives from Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\nPlaintiff argues that the injunction was proper and cites the fair trade case on which the trial court based its decision. (Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. New Cut Rate Liquors (7th Cir. 1955), 221 F.2d 815.) This case involved the IHinois Fair Trade Act and an injunction almost identical to the one in the instant case. The court there reasoned that notwithstanding the language of Rule 65(d) the injunction reasonably informed defendant of the acts restrained yet also provided sufficient flexibffity to meet the needs of a changing market. Without such flexibility, enforcement of the Fair Trade Act would become a practical impossibility.\nUpon examining these cases, we do not believe the instant injunction creates undue hardship for defendant. Defendant is actively involved in the liquor business and is aware of the products which are fair traded. The injunction informs defendant of whose products are involved and how in accordance with law defendant w\u00fcl be informed of any subsequent changes in plaintiffs fair trade program. The burden placed upon defendant is not so onerous as to render the injunction invalid. See Calvert Distillers Co. v. Vesolowski (No. 57532 (First Dist.), filed May 9, 1973.)\nTherefore, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nDRUCKER, P. J., and ENGLISH, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE LORENZ" } ], "attorneys": [ "Allen H. Schultz, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Patrick W. O\u2019Brien, David S. K. Platt, and Douglas J. Parry, all of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The Paddington Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Westville Bevverage Mart, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 57314;\nFirst District (5th Division)\nJune 22, 1973.\nAllen H. Schultz, of Chicago, for appellant.\nPatrick W. O\u2019Brien, David S. K. Platt, and Douglas J. Parry, all of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0555-01", "first_page_order": 575, "last_page_order": 578 }