Calamia v. Goldsmith Bros.
This text of 299 N.Y. 795 (Calamia v. Goldsmith Bros.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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]*796ment 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
299 N.Y. 795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calamia-v-goldsmith-bros-ny-1949.