Karsten Dairies, Inc. v. Baldwin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karsten Dairies, Inc. v. Baldwin

243 A.D. 656

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 243 A.D. 656 (Karsten Dairies, Inc. v. Baldwin) 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

Karsten Dairies, Inc. v. Baldwin, 243 A.D. 656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

The Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets revoked a temporary license of June 4,1934, and denied an application to extend the same. The corporation owned a milk station, bought milk from the producers in Montgomery county, and shipped it to New York and elsewhere. The permanent license of the petitioner had been revoked for underpaying the milk producers, and the temporary license was granted only on the [657]*657demolition that it would make the back payments due to the producers. This it failed to do. The petitioner claimed to have made the back payments by means of a device of “ loans,” viz., paying in full by cheek and then taking back part of the payment by way of a loan to be paid when and if the petitioner was financially able. This was a violation of section 258-n of article 21-A of the Agriculture and Markets Law, added by chapter 126 of the Laws of 1934. Determination unanimously confirmed with fifty dollars costs and disbursements. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Bliss and Hefíernan, JJ.

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

The Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets revoked a temporary license of June 4,1934, and denied an application to extend the same. The corporation owned a milk station, bought milk from the producers in Montgomery county, and shipped it to New York and elsewhere. The permanent license of the petitioner had been revoked for underpaying the milk producers, and the temporary license was granted only on the [657]*657demolition that it would make the back payments due to the producers. This it failed to do. The petitioner claimed to have made the back payments by means of a device of “ loans,” viz., paying in full by cheek and then taking back part of the payment by way of a loan to be paid when and if the petitioner was financially able. This was a violation of section 258-n of article 21-A of the Agriculture and Markets Law, added by chapter 126 of the Laws of 1934. Determination unanimously confirmed with fifty dollars costs and disbursements. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Bliss and Hefíernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karsten-dairies-inc-v-baldwin-nyappdiv-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack