Wayne County Produce Co. v. Duffy-Mott Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wayne County Produce Co. v. Duffy-Mott Co.

217 A.D. 781

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

DecidedJune 15, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 217 A.D. 781 (Wayne County Produce Co. v. Duffy-Mott 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

Wayne County Produce Co. v. Duffy-Mott Co., 217 A.D. 781 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting summary judgment and judgment entered thereon affirmed, with posts. From the invoices prepared by the defendant and delivered to the plaintiff and from the correspondence between the parties, we think the money sought to be recovered in this action was paid to the defendant as duty upon the merchandise purchased, imposed by the government; that in paying such duty, the defendant used the plaintiff’s money paid to it for that purpose. (Friend v. Rosenwald, 124 App. Div. 226; Solomon Tobacco Co. v. Cohen, [782]*782184 N. Y. 308.) Kelly, P. J., Manning, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur; Lazansky, J., dissents and votes to reverse on the ground that upon the record a question of fact is to be determined as to whether the tax was a part of the price, or whether the parties had agreed that the tax was to be remitted to the plaintiff if the defendant should procure the return thereof from the government.

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

Order granting summary judgment and judgment entered thereon affirmed, with posts. From the invoices prepared by the defendant and delivered to the plaintiff and from the correspondence between the parties, we think the money sought to be recovered in this action was paid to the defendant as duty upon the merchandise purchased, imposed by the government; that in paying such duty, the defendant used the plaintiff’s money paid to it for that purpose. (Friend v. Rosenwald, 124 App. Div. 226; Solomon Tobacco Co. v. Cohen, [782]*782184 N. Y. 308.) Kelly, P. J., Manning, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur; Lazansky, J., dissents and votes to reverse on the ground that upon the record a question of fact is to be determined as to whether the tax was a part of the price, or whether the parties had agreed that the tax was to be remitted to the plaintiff if the defendant should procure the return thereof from the government.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D. 781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wayne-county-produce-co-v-duffy-mott-co-nyappdiv-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack