Healey v. R. H. Macy & Co.

251 A.D. 440, 297 N.Y.S. 165, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6964
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 22, 1937·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that there is ample evidence in the record to sustain the verdict of the jury in favor of plaintiff, and that it was error to set it aside. While it is true that the defendant introduced proof to show that the idea used in its 1934 Christmas advertising campaign was originated and developed by its own advertising department independently of plaintiff, there are many inconsistencies and circumstances in defendant’s case which cloud the testimony with suspicion. The issue on this score, therefore, was strictly one of veracity, and it was the jury’s province to determine wherein the truth lay.

The exceedingly fair attitude of the plaintiff from the outset of this controversy, in offering to drop the matter, if proof were furnished him that defendant’s advertising department originally conceived the idea, indicated that his claim had a basis in fact and was not advanced as an afterthought.

Furthermore, the jury was warranted in finding that the originality and novelty of plaintiff’s idea was not disproved by the documentary evidence introduced by the defendant.

The judgment-should be reversed with costs, and the verdict of the jury reinstated.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs, and the verdict of the jury reinstated.

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

Healey v. R. H. Macy & Co., 251 A.D. 440, 297 N.Y.S. 165, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6964 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

251 A.D. 440 (Healey v. R. H. Macy & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Downey v. General Foods Corp.
37 A.D.2d 250 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1971)
Robbins v. Frank Cooper Associates
200 N.E.2d 860 (New York Court of Appeals, 1964)
Robbins v. Frank Cooper Associates
19 A.D.2d 242 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)
Stanley v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.
221 P.2d 73 (California Supreme Court, 1950)
Bailey v. Haberle Congress Brewing Co.
193 Misc. 723 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1948)
Johnston v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.
187 P.2d 474 (California Court of Appeal, 1947)
Bialostok v. Wolfer
191 Misc. 385 (New York Supreme Court, 1947)
Brunner v. Stix, Baer & Fuller Co.
181 S.W.2d 643 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1944)
American Mint Corp. v. Ex-Lax, Inc.
263 A.D. 89 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1941)
Cole v. Phillips H. Lord, Inc.
262 A.D. 116 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1941)
Alberts v. Remington Rand, Inc.
175 Misc. 486 (New York Supreme Court, 1940)
Ketcham v. New York World's Fair 1939, Inc.
34 F. Supp. 657 (E.D. New York, 1940)
Veatch v. Standard Oil Co.
49 F. Supp. 45 (S.D. New York, 1940)
Stone v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.
172 Misc. 591 (New York Supreme Court, 1939)