Legal Opinion

Marrow Manufacturing Corp. v. Eitinger

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 25, 1945PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPecosa, J.

Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that it fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and that plaintiff has not the capacity to sue. The first cause of action is based upon the alleged improper and excessive price which it paid to defendant for merchandise covered by the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 (U. S. Code, tit. 50, Appendix, § 901 et seq.) and the maximum price regulations issued pursuant thereto. Recovery is sought for the difference between the amount paid and the maximum to which defendant would be entitled by law. In the second…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lightbody v. RussellNew York Court of Appeals · 1944
  2. International Spangles Corp. v. Marrow Manufacturing Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1945
  3. Alba Trading Co. v. ConstantsNew York Supreme Court · 1944

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Compañia Importadora Materiales Industriales y De Construccion Sociedad De Responsabilidad Limitada v. Caldwell & Co.New York Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Armour & Co. v. BlindmanDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1947
  3. Tuskegee Homes Co. v. OswaltSupreme Court of Alabama · 1946
  4. Edsil Trading Corp. v. John Minder & Sons, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Marrow Manufacturing Corp. v. EitingerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1946

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API