Julius Schmid, Inc. v. Youngs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Julius Schmid, Inc. v. Youngs

249 A.D. 801, 292 N.Y.S. 529

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 1937·Published

Opinion

The matter pleaded in the second cause of action is so general that it cannot be said that it applies to plaintiff. (Feely v. Vitagraph Co., 184 App. Div. 527.) It may be, however, that plaintiff is able to plead a proper cause of action. (Gross v. Cantor, 270 N. Y. 93.) Order modified by striking out the second cause of action, and as so modified affirmed, without costs, with leave to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within ten days after service of order. No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon,, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.

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

The matter pleaded in the second cause of action is so general that it cannot be said that it applies to plaintiff. (Feely v. Vitagraph Co., 184 App. Div. 527.) It may be, however, that plaintiff is able to plead a proper cause of action. (Gross v. Cantor, 270 N. Y. 93.) Order modified by striking out the second cause of action, and as so modified affirmed, without costs, with leave to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within ten days after service of order. No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon,, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.

Julius Schmid, Inc. v. Youngs, 249 A.D. 801, 292 N.Y.S. 529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

249 A.D. 801 (Julius Schmid, Inc. v. Youngs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related