Legal Opinion

Matthews v. William Frank Brewing Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1899PublishedCited by 5 opinions

’Action to recover back money obtained by alleged duress.

1Opinion of the CourtMcAdam, J.

Taking the most favorable view of the plaintiff’s case, and assuming for present purposes that the understanding had December 16, 1897, amounted to a contract by the defendant to supply the plaintiff all the beer required in his saloon business, for one year thereafter, at $8 a barrel, we will next inquire what legal results follow. In June, 1898, the War Revenue Act became a law, and by it a tax of $2 a barrel was imposed on all beer, etc., brewed and sold, whereupon the defendant, a brewing corporation, refused to deliver any more beer under the contract, unless the plaintiff paid $1 a…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Railroad Co. v. CommissionersSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. Flower v. . LanceNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  3. Quincey v. . WhiteNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  4. Starr v. . StarrNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
  5. Emmons v. ScudderMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Johnson v. FordTennessee Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Waara v. KaneSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Castano v. GabrielCivil Court of the City of New York · 1969
  4. Interborough Rapid Transit Co. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
  5. Scheer-Ginsberg Realty & Construction Co. v. DevinAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1912

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API