Gotham Silk Hosiery Co. v. Reynolds Metals Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gotham Silk Hosiery Co. v. Reynolds Metals Co.

258 A.D. 884, 16 N.Y.S.2d 238

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 21, 1939·Published

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The cross-complaint against the eodefendant Reynolds Metals Company, Incorporated, is legally sufficient and was properly interposed.

The order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant against the defendant-respondent, and the motion to strike out the cross-complaint denied.

Order reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant against the defendant-respondent, and motion to strike out the cross-complaint denied.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Dore and Callahan, JJ., dissent.

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

Per Curiam.

The cross-complaint against the eodefendant Reynolds Metals Company, Incorporated, is legally sufficient and was properly interposed.

The order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant against the defendant-respondent, and the motion to strike out the cross-complaint denied.

Order reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant against the defendant-respondent, and motion to strike out the cross-complaint denied.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Dore and Callahan, JJ., dissent.

Gotham Silk Hosiery Co. v. Reynolds Metals Co., 258 A.D. 884, 16 N.Y.S.2d 238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

258 A.D. 884 (Gotham Silk Hosiery Co. v. Reynolds Metals Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.