Goodrow v. MacDonald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goodrow v. MacDonald

256 A.D. 1023, 10 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5921

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 1023 (Goodrow v. MacDonald) 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

Goodrow v. MacDonald, 256 A.D. 1023, 10 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order denying defendants’ motion to require plaintiff to separately state and number different causes of action contained in the complaint. Plaintiff brings this action under the Agriculture and Markets Law against all of the defendants. It is alleged in the complaint that plaintiff became ill from eating canned salmon, purchased from R. T. Wilcox, retailer; that the salmon was adulterated with unwholesome and deleterious substances. The defendants are packers, factors, distributors and wholesalers, all of whom it is alleged either packed, possessed, had or sold the adulterated salmon. There was but one cause of action, and that under the Agriculture and Markets Law. (McSpedon v. Kunz, 271 N. Y. 131.) The order denying the motion to separately state and number causes of action was properly made. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., concur; Rhodes, J., concurs, on the ground that assuming the complaint sets forth more than one cause of action, the motion was properly denied, since it involved a discretionary matter.

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

Appeal from an order denying defendants’ motion to require plaintiff to separately state and number different causes of action contained in the complaint. Plaintiff brings this action under the Agriculture and Markets Law against all of the defendants. It is alleged in the complaint that plaintiff became ill from eating canned salmon, purchased from R. T. Wilcox, retailer; that the salmon was adulterated with unwholesome and deleterious substances. The defendants are packers, factors, distributors and wholesalers, all of whom it is alleged either packed, possessed, had or sold the adulterated salmon. There was but one cause of action, and that under the Agriculture and Markets Law. (McSpedon v. Kunz, 271 N. Y. 131.) The order denying the motion to separately state and number causes of action was properly made. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., concur; Rhodes, J., concurs, on the ground that assuming the complaint sets forth more than one cause of action, the motion was properly denied, since it involved a discretionary matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 1023, 10 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodrow-v-macdonald-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack