In re Lurman
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from special term, New York county. Application by Theodor Gr. Lurman for mandamus to the Coffee Exchange of the City of New York to restore petitioner to full membership in said exchange. From an order denying the writ, petitioner appeals. Reversed. In July, 1894, the petitioner’s firm entered into a contract with Messrs. W. H. Grossman & Bro. for the purchase of coffee of certain average grade.
Read the full summary
Appeal from special term, New York county. Application by Theodor Gr. Lurman for mandamus to the Coffee Exchange of the City of New York to restore petitioner to full membership in said exchange. From an order denying the writ, petitioner appeals. Reversed. In July, 1894, the petitioner’s firm entered into a contract with Messrs. W. H. Grossman & Bro. for the purchase of coffee of certain average grade. The contract provided that the coffee should be graded by Mackey & Small; that, should their grading be unsatisfactory to the buyer, the latter should appoint a grader, and, in the event of…
1Opinion of the CourtO’Brien, J.
From the outset of the controversy which resulted in the suspension of the petitioner, he consistently took the position that he could not be required to accept a delivery of the coffee, because it was artificially colored or adulterated. If this position could be maintained, then, notwithstanding any by-law or rule of the exchange to the contrary, he could not be forced to accept a delivery of such coffees, for the reason that the trading in such contravenes the express statute of this state (Laws 1893, c. 661, § 41), which provides:
“No person shall within the state * * * have, sell or offer…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lurman v. JarvieAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
- Crossman v. LurmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Crossman v. LurmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901