Legal Opinion
Crossman v. Lurman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 8, 1899Published
Appeal from trial term, New York county. Action by George W. Grossman and others against Theodor G. Lurman and others for breach of a contract of sale. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.
1Opinion of the CourtIngraham, J.
On a former appeal to this court in this action (33 App. Div. 422, 54 N. Y. Supp. 72), it was held that the only question presented was whether a sale of the coffee was prohibited by section 41 of the public health law (chapter 661, Laws 1893). It is there provided that:
“No person shall within the state * * * sell, or offer for sale, any adulterated food or drug. An article shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this act <= * * in the case of food * * * if it be colored, or coated, or polished, or powdered whereby darpage is concealed or it is made to appear better than it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Crossman v. LurmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898