Federal Sugar Refining Co. v. United States Sugar Equalization Board, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
At Raw. Action by the Federal Sugar Refining Company against the United States Sugar Equalization Board, Incorporated. On demurrer to answer. To the complaint herein the answer has interposed three affirmative defenses, and to each and every one of these defenses plaintiff has demurred.
Read the full summary
At Raw. Action by the Federal Sugar Refining Company against the United States Sugar Equalization Board, Incorporated. On demurrer to answer. To the complaint herein the answer has interposed three affirmative defenses, and to each and every one of these defenses plaintiff has demurred. The complaint sets forth three causes of action, and, omitting formal allegations, the essential features set forth in these causes of action are as follows: First Cause of Action. — Substantially all the allegations are on information and belief. Defendant is a Delaware corporation. The Norwegian Government…
1Opinion of the Court
MAYER, District Judge,
(after stating the facts as above). [1] It is, of course, elementary that a demurrer searches the complaint, and therefore it becomes necessary at the outset to determine whether the complaint states one or more causes of action. So far as language goes, it is plain that the complaint is framed upon the theory that the facts set forth causes of action upon an implied promise upon the count for money had and received, which in equity and good conscience defendant should not retain- and should pay to plaintiff. It will be unnecessary to determine whether the allegations of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Miller v. . SchlossNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- US Bank v. PLANTERS'BANKSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- The Lake MonroeSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Schall v. CamorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Cook v. AVI Casino Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- State Docks Commission v. BarnesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Marcus, Stowell & Beye Government Securities, Inc. v. Jefferson Investment CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
- National Merchandising Corp. v. LeydenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
- Caskie v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.