Legal Opinion

American Lithographic Co. v. Dorrance-Sullivan & Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided November 24, 1925PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hiscock, Ch. J.

This action is based solely on an account alleged to have been stated between the parties. The Appellate Division has granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not state a cause of action. The necessary implication from this determination of course is that on no permissible interpretation of the facts set forth in the complaint is plaintiff entitled to succeed. We do not agree with this view.

As appears from the complaint a transaction took place between the plaintiff and defendant, in the communications hereinafter referred to sometimes…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Work v. BeachNew York Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Britton v. . ScognamilloNew York Court of Appeals · 1924

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Gurney, Becker & Bourne, Inc. v. Benderson Development Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1979
  2. Huntsman Chemical Corp. v. Tri/Insul Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  3. Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Frontier Liquor Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Gurney v. Benderson Development Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978

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

Powered by the Exa API