Rourke v. Elk Drug Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rourke v. Elk Drug Co.

82 N.Y.S. 1113

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

DecidedMay 12, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 82 N.Y.S. 1113 (Rourke v. Elk Drug Co.) 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

Rourke v. Elk Drug Co., 82 N.Y.S. 1113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Order modified by striking therefrom specifications 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,. 29, 30, 31. From specification 6 strike out the last clause, to wit, “and the respective prices of such arti[1114]*1114cles or commodities which it is alleged said association had fixed for the same.” From specification 12 strike out the last clause, to wit, “with the respective dates of such applications and such refusals.” From specification 20 strike out the last clause, to wit, “with the contract value for each quantity of such goods and the dates when each of such parties withdrew or refused to perform said alleged contracts.” From specification 23 strike out the last clause, to wit, “giving the names of the persons to whom and the dates when such expenses were paid with the amount paid in each instance.” As thus modified, let the order be affirmed, without costs to either party.

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

PER CURIAM.

Order modified by striking therefrom specifications 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,. 29, 30, 31. From specification 6 strike out the last clause, to wit, “and the respective prices of such arti[1114]*1114cles or commodities which it is alleged said association had fixed for the same.” From specification 12 strike out the last clause, to wit, “with the respective dates of such applications and such refusals.” From specification 20 strike out the last clause, to wit, “with the contract value for each quantity of such goods and the dates when each of such parties withdrew or refused to perform said alleged contracts.” From specification 23 strike out the last clause, to wit, “giving the names of the persons to whom and the dates when such expenses were paid with the amount paid in each instance.” As thus modified, let the order be affirmed, without costs to either party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 N.Y.S. 1113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rourke-v-elk-drug-co-nyappdiv-1903.