Shepard Chemical Corp. v. Philipp Brothers Chemicals International Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shepard Chemical Corp. v. Philipp Brothers Chemicals International Co.

281 A.D. 820, 119 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3434

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D. 820 (Shepard Chemical Corp. v. Philipp Brothers Chemicals International 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

Shepard Chemical Corp. v. Philipp Brothers Chemicals International Co., 281 A.D. 820, 119 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted. The complaint, as we read it, does not merely allege a series of separate acts constituting a single wrong in furtherance of a single conspiracy. Rather, it alleges the commission of two wrongs, pleading (1) wrongful inducement of breach of contract by one under contract with the plaintiff, and (2) wrongful removal of property from the jurisdiction of the court for the purpose of defeating the plaintiff’s rights and remedies under a warrant of attachment in another action. Thus, the complaint alleges several acts that amount to invasions of separate rights belonging to the plaintiff. One would be a common-law right, and the other would seem to rest, at least in part, on statute. Under the circumstances, the motion to separately state and number causes of action should have been granted. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Breitel, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted. The complaint, as we read it, does not merely allege a series of separate acts constituting a single wrong in furtherance of a single conspiracy. Rather, it alleges the commission of two wrongs, pleading (1) wrongful inducement of breach of contract by one under contract with the plaintiff, and (2) wrongful removal of property from the jurisdiction of the court for the purpose of defeating the plaintiff’s rights and remedies under a warrant of attachment in another action. Thus, the complaint alleges several acts that amount to invasions of separate rights belonging to the plaintiff. One would be a common-law right, and the other would seem to rest, at least in part, on statute. Under the circumstances, the motion to separately state and number causes of action should have been granted. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Breitel, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 820, 119 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shepard-chemical-corp-v-philipp-brothers-chemicals-international-co-nyappdiv-1953.