Legal Opinion
Mendoza Fur Dyeing Works, Inc. v. Taylor
New York Court of Appeals
Decided December 31, 1936PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHtjbbs, J.
The respondent was engaged in the business of dyeing and processing fur skins owned by dealers and manufacturers. Respondent does not trade in, buy or sell fur skins. It does, however, in performing the service of dyeing and processing, use certain chemicals and dye stuffs purchased by it. Such chemicals and dye stuffs, except so far as they may adhere to or be incorporated into the skins processed, are consumed in its service operations.
In 1934 the Legislature, by chapter 873 of the laws of that year, authorized the city of New York, enacting through its local legislative body, to adopt and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Walker Engraving Corporation v. GravesNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
- People ex rel. Foremost Studio, Inc. v. GravesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
- People ex rel. Walker Engraving Corp. v. GravesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
3Cited by23 opinions
- Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Matter of Mounting Finishing Co. v. McGoldrickNew York Court of Appeals · 1945
- Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. WanamakerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955
- American Cyanamid & Chemical Corp. v. JosephNew York Court of Appeals · 1955
- In re New York Telephone Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.