Mead Johnson & Co. v. Waganfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mead Johnson & Co. v. Waganfeld

1 A.D.2d 772, 148 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6480

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 772 (Mead Johnson & Co. v. Waganfeld) 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

Mead Johnson & Co. v. Waganfeld, 1 A.D.2d 772, 148 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Upon the present record, the decision of the trial court that the defendant did not knowingly make sales that were in violation of plaintiff’s fair trade contracts is not against the weight of the credible evidence. In affirming, however, we reverse finding of fact numbered four that “ [a] 11 sales made by defendant of products produced and/or distributed by plaintiff have been at wholesale ”. The trial court was justified in finding that sales had not been made at retail but clearly there was insufficient proof submitted by the defendant from which it could be found that all sales were made at wholesale. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Bastow, Botein, Rabin and Bergan, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Upon the present record, the decision of the trial court that the defendant did not knowingly make sales that were in violation of plaintiff’s fair trade contracts is not against the weight of the credible evidence. In affirming, however, we reverse finding of fact numbered four that “ [a] 11 sales made by defendant of products produced and/or distributed by plaintiff have been at wholesale ”. The trial court was justified in finding that sales had not been made at retail but clearly there was insufficient proof submitted by the defendant from which it could be found that all sales were made at wholesale. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Bastow, Botein, Rabin and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 772, 148 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mead-johnson-co-v-waganfeld-nyappdiv-1956.