Legal Opinion
Abrams v. Meyerowitz
City of New York Municipal Court
Decided September 10, 1940PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtColeman, J.
There is no doubt that the plaintiff and defendant were habitual violators of the National Prohibition Act; that the money advanced (itself the proceeds of an illegal transaction) was for the purpose of enabling the defendant to continue infractions of that act; that the purpose was well known to the plaintiff, and that the latter aided in its consummation. These conclusions follow from the acts and conduct of the parties — implied as well as express. (Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Palmer, 252 App. Div. 55.) In such circumstances the plaintiff can have no relief from a court.
This much plaintiff…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bloch v. Frankfort Distillery, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
- Bloch v. Frankfort Distillery, IncorporatedNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Lido Capital Corp. v. EskelsenNew York Supreme Court · 1936
- Lido Capital Corp. v. VogelNew York City Court · 1936
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. PalmerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
3Cited by4 opinions
- Government of French Republic v. CabotNew York Supreme Court · 1947
- Rutkin v. ReinfeldDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1954
- Marcomo Stevedoring Corp. v. NathansonNew York Supreme Court · 1951
- Toll v. FriedmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1947