Legal Opinion
Bloomingdale v. Bloomingdale
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 15, 1919PublishedCited by 15 opinions
Demurrer to complaint.
1Opinion of the CourtFord, J.
Rosalie B. Bloomingdale, one of the two co-defendants, demurs to the. complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The other defendant is her husband.
From the complaint it appears that Samuel J. Bloomingdale and Hiram C. Bloomingdale, the plaintiffs, and Irving I. Bloomingdale, the non-demurring defendant, were for many years prior to August, 1917, copartners conducting a large department store in the city of New York. Dealing in pianos was an important branch of the business, and the firm also owned and used in connection with its business…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Williamson v. . BrownNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Union Bank of Georgetown v. LairdSupreme Court of the United States · 1817
- Gannon v. . McGuireNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Barrett v. KingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- Matter of Petition of Argus Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1893
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Palmer v. ChamberlinCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1951
- Allen v. Biltmore Tissue Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1957
- Steven Harlamert, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of John Harlamert v. World Finer Foods, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
- Vannucci v. PedriniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Weissman v. Lincoln CorporationSupreme Court of Florida · 1954
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.