
    S. Andral Kilmer, Appellant, v. Dr. Kilmer & Co., Respondent.
    
      Kilmer v. Dr. Kilmer & Co., 175 App. Div. 670, affirmed.
    (Argued January 24, 1919;
    decided February 7, 1919.)
    Appeal from a judgment entered January 4, 1917 upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and directing a dismissal of the complaint. The action was brought to obtain certain injunctive relief and resulted in a decision and judgment restraining the defendant corporation from receiving, opening or in any manner interfering with any and all mail received at the post office in the city of Binghamton, N. Y., or in any other place or manner, addressed in any of the following names: Dr. S. Andral Kilmer & Co., S. Andral Kilmer & Co., S. A. Kilmer, M. D., S. Andral Kilmer, Dr.- S. A. Kilmer, S. A. Kilmer & Co., S. A. Kilmer, Andral Kilmer, Andral Kilmer, ■ M. D., Dr. Andral Kilmer, S. Kilmer, M. D., • Dr. S. Kilmer, Dr. Kilmer, S. Andral Kilmer, M. D., S. Kilmer, Dr. S. Andral Kilmer; from receiving, opening or in any manner interfering with any letters having the word “ personal ” written or printed upon -the envelope with the address containing Dr. Kilmer or any other title, showing that it is a physician with whom the writer intends to communicate; from using the name of the plaintiff without regard to the prefix or affix in connection with its business, upon its advertising matter, in such a way or manner as is calculated to lead the public to believe that S. Andral Kilmer is the physician connected with or in charge of the medical department of the defendant; from using the name of S. Andral Kilmer in any of its sdvertisements, pamphlets, circulars, labels or other advertising matter, in any place wherein the same was not actually used on March 14, 1892, as provided in the contract of that date between Jonas M. Kilmer and the said S. Andral Kilmer.
    
      Joseph Walker Magrauth and Rollin W. Meeker for appellant.
    
      William Nottingham and Theodore R. Tuthill for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

. Concur: Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.  