Crossman v. Lurman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiffs, George W. Crossman and Herman Sieloken, composing the firm of W. H. Crossman & Brother, from a-judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the.defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 18th day of August', 1899, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 23d day of August, 1899, denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.'’ This action was…
Read the full summary
Appeal by the plaintiffs, George W. Crossman and Herman Sieloken, composing the firm of W. H. Crossman & Brother, from a-judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the.defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 18th day of August', 1899, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 23d day of August, 1899, denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.'’ This action was brought to recover damages for the failure of the defendants to accept certain coffees tendered them under a contract…
1Opinion of the Court
Ingraham, J.:
• On a former appeal to this court in this action (33 App. Div. 422) 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 (Chap. 661, Laws of 1893). It is there provided that “Ho 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 damage 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