Legal Opinion

Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Barrett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 19, 1923PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hinmajst, J.:

This action in which summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice has been granted was brought to recover damages against the defendant as president of the Adams Express Company for the value of goods delivered to said express company for transportation, which the complaint alleges were either lost or damaged in transit through the negligence, carelessness, inattention and omission of said Adams Express Company. The complaint contains fourteen causes of action. Five are for loss or damage of merchandise shipped by outside parties to the plaintiff; nine arise on…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. General Investment Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
  2. Scovill v. . GriffithNew York Court of Appeals · 1855
  3. Poland Export Corp. v. MarcusAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
  4. Wile v. Nassau Smelting & Refining Works, Ltd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Prime Manufacturing Co. v. A. F. Gallun & Sons Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Joseph Mogul, Inc. v. C. Lewis Lavine, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
  3. Parish v. Awschu Properties, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Waxman v. WilliamsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  5. Schusterman v. C & F Caterers, Inc.City of New York Municipal Court · 1948

11 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