Alison v. China & Japan Trading Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alison v. China & Japan Trading Co.

127 A.D. 246, 111 N.Y.S. 100, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1944

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

DecidedJune 5, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D. 246 (Alison v. China & Japan Trading Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alison v. China & Japan Trading Co., 127 A.D. 246, 111 N.Y.S. 100, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

The complaint contains only one cause of action, as the plaintiff claims, if it contain any, namely, a cause of action for damages for libel for the letter written by the defendant which is alleged in the ninth paragraph of the complaint. Substantially all else in the complaint is irrelevant verbiage, in winch some pleaders revel, but [250]*250the defendant’s remedy against that is a motion to strike it out. There are no different causes of action, to separately state, as was the defendant’s motion.

The order should be affirmed. —.

Woodward, Jerks and Miller, JJ., concurred; Bran, J., concurred in result.

. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gaynor, J.:

The complaint contains only one cause of action, as the plaintiff claims, if it contain any, namely, a cause of action for damages for libel for the letter written by the defendant which is alleged in the ninth paragraph of the complaint. Substantially all else in the complaint is irrelevant verbiage, in winch some pleaders revel, but [250]*250the defendant’s remedy against that is a motion to strike it out. There are no different causes of action, to separately state, as was the defendant’s motion.

The order should be affirmed. —.

Woodward, Jerks and Miller, JJ., concurred; Bran, J., concurred in result.

. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D. 246, 111 N.Y.S. 100, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alison-v-china-japan-trading-co-nyappdiv-1908.