Calamia v. Goldsmith Bros.

New York Court of Appeals

Calamia v. Goldsmith Bros.

299 N.Y. 795

New York Court of Appeals·Decided July 19, 1949·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: “The following question under the Constitution and laws of the United States was presented and necessarily passed upon: ‘ Whether Article 24-A of the General Business Law is inconsistent with the Miller-Tydings Amend[796] ment to the Sherman Act (U. S. Code, tit. 15, § 1) if construed to permit suits by non-signatories and against non-signatories of “ fair trade ” contracts relating to commodities in interstate commerce ’. This Court held such construction of Article 24-A of the General Business Law of New York to be consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” [See 299 N. Y. 636.]

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

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: “The following question under the Constitution and laws of the United States was presented and necessarily passed upon: ‘ Whether Article 24-A of the General Business Law is inconsistent with the Miller-Tydings Amend[796] ment to the Sherman Act (U. S. Code, tit. 15, § 1) if construed to permit suits by non-signatories and against non-signatories of “ fair trade ” contracts relating to commodities in interstate commerce ’. This Court held such construction of Article 24-A of the General Business Law of New York to be consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” [See 299 N. Y. 636.]

Calamia v. Goldsmith Bros., 299 N.Y. 795 (N.Y. 1949).

Pincite

299 N.Y. 795 (Calamia v. Goldsmith Bros.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related