Legal Opinion

Unger v. Eagle Fish Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 4, 1945PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGarvin, J.

This is a motion by defendant for an order dismissing the complaint pursuant to subdivision 5 of rule 106. of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a'cause of action.

The gravamen of the complaint is an alleged false and fraudulent representation by defendant to plaintiff that the Office of Price Administration had not feed any ceiling on frozen fish; thht said commodity was not under any of the regulations of said office; that defendant had sold and was selling considerable sums of frozen fish on the open market at forty…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hoard v. U. S. Paint, Lacquer & Chemical Co.New York Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Unger v. Eagle Fish Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945
  3. Kushilewsky v. LinchnerNew York Supreme Court · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API