Partridge v. Doty

New York Supreme Court

Partridge v. Doty

121 N.Y.S. 586

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 15, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 121 N.Y.S. 586 (Partridge v. Doty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Partridge v. Doty, 121 N.Y.S. 586 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, J.

The use by defendant of plaintiffs’ milk bottles, stamped with plaintiffs’ trade-marks thereon, without plaintiffs’ permission, subjects defendant to a penalty of $100, to be forfeited to each of the plaintiffs, under the provisions of section 28 of chapter 376 of the Laws of 1896. Possession of such milk bottles, without the consent of the plaintiffs, is made presumptive evidence of such illegal use.

The trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaints upon the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the contents of the bottles found in the possession of defendant was a beverage. There was no evidence offered upon the trial that the possession of the bottles by the defendant was without the consent of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs failed to prove the essential element of their causes of action. The judgments dismissing the complaints were right, because of this fatal defect in plaintiffs’ proofs.

The judgments must be affirmed, with costs, notwithstanding the erroneous grounds stated by the trial court as a reason for the judgments rendered.

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

BROWN, J.

The use by defendant of plaintiffs’ milk bottles, stamped with plaintiffs’ trade-marks thereon, without plaintiffs’ permission, subjects defendant to a penalty of $100, to be forfeited to each of the plaintiffs, under the provisions of section 28 of chapter 376 of the Laws of 1896. Possession of such milk bottles, without the consent of the plaintiffs, is made presumptive evidence of such illegal use.

The trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaints upon the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the contents of the bottles found in the possession of defendant was a beverage. There was no evidence offered upon the trial that the possession of the bottles by the defendant was without the consent of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs failed to prove the essential element of their causes of action. The judgments dismissing the complaints were right, because of this fatal defect in plaintiffs’ proofs.

The judgments must be affirmed, with costs, notwithstanding the erroneous grounds stated by the trial court as a reason for the judgments rendered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 N.Y.S. 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/partridge-v-doty-nysupct-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack