Roystone v. Woodbury Dermatological Institute
New York Supreme Court
Motion by plaintiff for a new trial upon exceptions after dismissal of complaint as against defendant Buggeln, and verdict for nominal damages against defendant institute, upon instructions that substantial damages could not be awarded.
1Opinion of the CourtWhitney, J.
This is not and cannot now be claimed by plaintiff to be an action ex contractu. On the trial she treated it as one in trover for the conversion of an idea, namely, her secret formula for removing smallpox pits, birthmarks and other scars from the human face; but trover lies only for the conversion of tangible personal property or of tangible evidence of title to intangible or real property. The copy of her formula which was left with the defendants was not an evidence of title, as she herself points out. It was of no more value to her than a piece of waste paper. Her *266complaint was,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Durant Land Improvement Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Collins v. . ButlerNew York Court of Appeals · 1904
3Cited by6 opinions
- Vernon Chappell v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
- Olschewski v. HudsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Illinois Minerals Co. v. McCartyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1943
- Sachs v. Cluett, Peabody & Co.New York Supreme Court · 1941
- Thompson v. MOBIL PRODUCING COMPANYDistrict Court, D. Montana · 1958
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.