Green v. Davies

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Green v. Davies

83 A.D. 216, 82 N.Y.S. 54

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

DecidedMay 15, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 83 A.D. 216 (Green v. Davies) 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

Green v. Davies, 83 A.D. 216, 82 N.Y.S. 54 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This appeal is from an intérlocutory judgment overruling demurrers to the complaint.

The complaint alleges, in substance, that the defendants Green and Oppenlieim are members of the firm of Green & Co., and that, the defendants Davies and Gorman are employees of such firm that at the time stated the defendants entered into an agreement to injure the plaintiff in his good name and reputation for the purpose of ruining and destroying him as a competitor in business, by causing the customers of the plaintiff to believe that he was insane and not capable of attending to his business or affairs; that he was an rresponsible person and ought not to be at large. The complaint then sets out the specific act which each of the defendants did and alleges that such acts were in accordance with such prearranged plan and that by reason thereof plaintiff has been damaged to the extent of $20,000.

We think the demurrers were properly overruled. There is but one cause of action stated and that is that the plaintiff has been damaged by the united action of all of the defendants in pursuance of an agreement between them to accomplish an illegal purpose. If it be true, as alleged, that defendants did enter into an agreement to injure the reputation or business of the plaintiff by causing-it to be believed by his friends or customers that he is insane, unfit, to associate with and dangerous to be at large, and in the carrying out of the agreement he has been damaged, then all of the defendants are liable for the acts of each party to the agreement. They are joint tort feasors and for whatever injury has been done each and all are liable, (Rourke v. Elk Drug Co., 75 App. Div. 146.).

The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed, with costs. [218]*218with leave to the defendants, however, to withdraw demurrers and answer on payment of costs in this court and in the court below.

Present — Van Brunt, P. J., Patterson, Ingraham, McLaughlin and Laughlin, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendants to withdraw demurrers and answer on payment of costs in this court and in the court below.

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

Per Curiam:

This appeal is from an intérlocutory judgment overruling demurrers to the complaint.

The complaint alleges, in substance, that the defendants Green and Oppenlieim are members of the firm of Green & Co., and that, the defendants Davies and Gorman are employees of such firm that at the time stated the defendants entered into an agreement to injure the plaintiff in his good name and reputation for the purpose of ruining and destroying him as a competitor in business, by causing the customers of the plaintiff to believe that he was insane and not capable of attending to his business or affairs; that he was an rresponsible person and ought not to be at large. The complaint then sets out the specific act which each of the defendants did and alleges that such acts were in accordance with such prearranged plan and that by reason thereof plaintiff has been damaged to the extent of $20,000.

We think the demurrers were properly overruled. There is but one cause of action stated and that is that the plaintiff has been damaged by the united action of all of the defendants in pursuance of an agreement between them to accomplish an illegal purpose. If it be true, as alleged, that defendants did enter into an agreement to injure the reputation or business of the plaintiff by causing-it to be believed by his friends or customers that he is insane, unfit, to associate with and dangerous to be at large, and in the carrying out of the agreement he has been damaged, then all of the defendants are liable for the acts of each party to the agreement. They are joint tort feasors and for whatever injury has been done each and all are liable, (Rourke v. Elk Drug Co., 75 App. Div. 146.).

The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed, with costs. [218]*218with leave to the defendants, however, to withdraw demurrers and answer on payment of costs in this court and in the court below.

Present — Van Brunt, P. J., Patterson, Ingraham, McLaughlin and Laughlin, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendants to withdraw demurrers and answer on payment of costs in this court and in the court below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D. 216, 82 N.Y.S. 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-davies-nyappdiv-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack