Dieterich v. . Fargo
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment, entered October 9,1907, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, which affirmed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The statute, as construed by the lower courts, is in- derogation of common-law rights. (2 Black. Comm. 391—393; 2 Am. & Eng.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment, entered October 9,1907, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, which affirmed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The statute, as construed by the lower courts, is in- derogation of common-law rights. (2 Black. Comm. 391—393; 2 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 342; Goff v. Kilts, 15 Wend. 550 ; Blades v. Higgs, 11 H. L. Cas. 621; James v. Wood, 8 L. R. A. 448 ; Ulery v. Jones, 81 Ill. 403 ;…
1DissentVann, J.
The legislature well knew when it passed the Forest, Fish and Game Law that the pothunter and the marketman are the greatest obstacles in the way of protecting the deer of the state from destruction. Without a market the pothunter has no inducement to violate the law, and without resort to the usual agencies of transportation the marketman cannot violate the law. The market for deer was the evil aimed at by the legislature when it forbade the transportation of venison by any common carrier. A single carcass, when accompanied by the owner, was excepted from the prohibition in the interest of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- New York Ex Rel. Silz v. HesterbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- People Ex Rel. Hill v. . HesterbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1906
- Dieterich v. FargoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907