Legal Opinion
Shorten v. Milbank
New York Supreme Court
Decided March 1, 1939PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRosenman, J.
Motion by defendants Milbank, Tweed, Hope, Edna C. Plant and others to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice is granted.
This is an action for services rendered by the plaintiff as a private investigator.
The only question involved is whether the plaintiff must plead that he was duly licensed under section 70 of the General Business Law in order that his complaint state good causes of action. This simmers down to whether the contracts, which violate the statutory provisions relative to a license and which are sought to be made the bases of this…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- John E. Rosasco Creameries, Inc. v. CohenNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Jerome v. RossNew York Court of Chancery · 1823
- Roman v. LobeNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
- Lehon v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Johnston v. . DahlgrenNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Landi v. ArkulesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
- American Store Equipment & Construction Corp. v. Jack Dempsey's Punch Bowl, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1939
- Berardi v. RutterNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956
- Kennard v. RosenbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Joe O'Brien Investigations, Inc. v. ZornAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.