People v. Nut-Ola Fat Products, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nut-Ola Fat Products, Inc.

248 A.D. 152, 288 N.Y.S. 219

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

DecidedMay 29, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 152 (People v. Nut-Ola Fat Products, Inc.) 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

People v. Nut-Ola Fat Products, Inc., 248 A.D. 152, 288 N.Y.S. 219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The question whether the defendant’s product constituted a substance in imitation of butter or a substance similar to oleomargarine should have been submitted to the jury as an issue of fact. Furthermore, testimony offered by the defendant tending to show that its product was not , a “ substance in imitation or semblance of butter ” nor a “ similar substance ” to oleomargarine (Agriculture and Markets Law, § 59) was erroneously excluded by the trial court.

The determination of the Appellate Term and the judgment of the Municipal Court should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant in all courts to abide the event.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.

Determination appealed from and judgment of the Municipal Court unanimously reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant in all courts to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam.

The question whether the defendant’s product constituted a substance in imitation of butter or a substance similar to oleomargarine should have been submitted to the jury as an issue of fact. Furthermore, testimony offered by the defendant tending to show that its product was not , a “ substance in imitation or semblance of butter ” nor a “ similar substance ” to oleomargarine (Agriculture and Markets Law, § 59) was erroneously excluded by the trial court.

The determination of the Appellate Term and the judgment of the Municipal Court should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant in all courts to abide the event.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.

Determination appealed from and judgment of the Municipal Court unanimously reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant in all courts to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 152, 288 N.Y.S. 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nut-ola-fat-products-inc-nyappdiv-1936.