Overland v. Rothenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Overland v. Rothenberg

282 A.D. 894, 124 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5356

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 894 (Overland v. Rothenberg) 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

Overland v. Rothenberg, 282 A.D. 894, 124 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to set aside a contract and for other relief, plaintiffs and defendant Le Roy Foods, Inc., appeal from an order denying their motions to dismiss a counterclaim interposed by defendant-respondent Eisenberg, to compel said appellants to account and for other relief. Order reversed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements, and motions granted, without costs. Plaintiffs’ testator made an assignment of 50% of any interest he had in and to a certain patent to the defendant Rothenberg and defendant-respondent Eisenberg. That assignment recited that defendant Le Roy Foods, Inc., was using and claiming the patent. If plaintiffs’ testator owned the patent, defendant-respondent became a joint owner of the patent and as such, could not obtain an accounting or a share in any funds received by another joint owner from the exploitation of the patent. If plaintiffs’ testator did not own the patent, he assigned nothing to defendant-respondent, who had no contractual relationship with the defendant Le Roy Foods, Inc. The counterclaim therefore states no cause of action against any party to the action. Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldóek, JJ., concur; Adel, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to affirm.

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

In an action to set aside a contract and for other relief, plaintiffs and defendant Le Roy Foods, Inc., appeal from an order denying their motions to dismiss a counterclaim interposed by defendant-respondent Eisenberg, to compel said appellants to account and for other relief. Order reversed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements, and motions granted, without costs. Plaintiffs’ testator made an assignment of 50% of any interest he had in and to a certain patent to the defendant Rothenberg and defendant-respondent Eisenberg. That assignment recited that defendant Le Roy Foods, Inc., was using and claiming the patent. If plaintiffs’ testator owned the patent, defendant-respondent became a joint owner of the patent and as such, could not obtain an accounting or a share in any funds received by another joint owner from the exploitation of the patent. If plaintiffs’ testator did not own the patent, he assigned nothing to defendant-respondent, who had no contractual relationship with the defendant Le Roy Foods, Inc. The counterclaim therefore states no cause of action against any party to the action. Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldóek, JJ., concur; Adel, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 894, 124 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/overland-v-rothenberg-nyappdiv-1953.