General Aniline & Film Corp. v. Bayer Co.

281 A.D. 668, 117 N.Y.S.2d 497
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 16, 1952·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

Memorandum by the Court. The only question before us is whether there is a valid defense pleaded, one which would be a bar to the complaint. Affirmance of the order does not import, as the dissenting opinion suggests, that the consent antitrust decree may not have to be considered in connection with the enforcement of any judgment which plaintiff may recover. It is, however, not a defense to plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of contract. Moreover, defendants may have other remedies to lift themselves from the paradoxical situation in which they find themselves, but a decree to which plaintiff was not a party may not be interposed as a defense.

Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent.

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

General Aniline & Film Corp. v. Bayer Co., 281 A.D. 668, 117 N.Y.S.2d 497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

281 A.D. 668 (General Aniline & Film Corp. v. Bayer Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Fidelity National Title Insurance
34 Misc. 3d 508 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
United States v. Bayer Company
135 F. Supp. 65 (S.D. New York, 1955)