Legal Opinion · Dissent

Drug Research Corp. v. Curtis Publishing Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided March 24, 1960Published

1Dissent

Desmond, Ch. J.

(dissenting). As the Appellate Division majority held, this entire article read as a whole in its ordinary meaning is naturally and proximately injurious to plaintiff and damaging to its credit and reputation (Samson United Corp. v. Dover Mfg. Co., 233 App. Div. 155, 156, citing 52 L. R. A. 526). If this pill manufactured by plaintiff does not reduce weight at all, as the article says, then no manufacturer could have produced it'without intending that it be sold under false pretenses (cf. Marlin Fire Arms Co. v. Shields, 171 N. Y. 384, 389, 390). Therefore, the complaint…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Marlin Fire Arms Co. v. . ShieldsNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
  2. Samson United Corp. v. Dover Manufacturing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API