Petnel v. American Telephone
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtBergan, J.
When the mosaic of legal conclusions stated in the complaint is separated from factual allegations the pleading is to be read as alleging the defendants’ unauthorized appropriation of plaintiff’s invention which is useful in dial telephones. The question presented is whether the Statute of Limitations has run. The court at Special Term has found affirmatively on this point and has dismissed the complaint.
Running through the pleading are statements that the use of plaintiff’s invention was “in violation of a duty” and was “ with the intent to * * * cheat and defraud ” plaintiff and that the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Brick v. Cohn-Hall-Marx Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Tabor v. . HoffmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Gottfried v. GottfriedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945
- Pitcher v. SuttonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
- Sachs v. Cluett, Peabody & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Franke v. WiltschekCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
- Lemelson v. Carolina Enterprises, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1982
- Kistler Instrumente A. G. v. Pcb Piezotronics, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 1976
- Erbe v. Lincoln Rochester Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1956
- Kavanau v. Virtis Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1969
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.