Williamson v. New York Central Railroad

258 A.D. 226, 16 N.Y.S.2d 217, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6403
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 19, 1939
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 258 A.D. 226 (Williamson v. New York Central Railroad) 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
Williamson v. New York Central Railroad, 258 A.D. 226, 16 N.Y.S.2d 217, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6403 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Action for breach of an implied contract to compensate plaintiff for the disclosure to defendants of an alleged novel idea for the production and staging of a miniature railroad at the New York World’s Fair.

The letters between the parties upon which the plaintiff’s claim is predicated do not constitute an express contract to compensate the plaintiff. An implied contract to do so does not arise therefrom, because they merely contain an abstract idea which may not be made the subject of property right in the absence of protection thereof by an express contract prior to disclosure. (Bristol v. E. L. A. Society, 132 N. Y. 264.) Plaintiff’s idea never took on concrete form at the time of disclosure so as to give rise to a property right such as occurs where a literary or artistic creation available for advertising use or otherwise is involved, This view makes [227]*227unnecessary passing on whether or not the plaintiff’s idea was novel or commonplace.

The order denying appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice should be reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell and Taylor, JJ., concur; Close, J., not voting.

Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

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

Related

Epstein v. DENNISON MANUFACTURING COMPANY
314 F. Supp. 116 (S.D. New York, 1969)
Flemming v. Ronson Corp.
258 A.2d 153 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1969)
Regenstein v. Commissioner
35 T.C. 183 (U.S. Tax Court, 1960)
Towers v. Doroshaw
5 Misc. 2d 241 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Kaplan v. Michtom
17 F.R.D. 228 (S.D. New York, 1955)
Hamilton Nat. Bank v. Belt
210 F.2d 706 (D.C. Circuit, 1953)
Jones v. Ulrich
95 N.E.2d 113 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1950)
Stanley v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.
221 P.2d 73 (California Supreme Court, 1950)
Bailey v. Haberle Congress Brewing Co.
193 Misc. 723 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1948)
Matarese v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.
158 F.2d 631 (Second Circuit, 1946)
Plus Promotions, Inc. v. RCA Mfg. Co., Inc.
49 F. Supp. 116 (S.D. New York, 1943)
Stone v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.
260 A.D. 450 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1940)
Rodriguez v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
259 A.D. 224 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1940)
Anderson v. Distler
173 Misc. 261 (New York Supreme Court, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
258 A.D. 226, 16 N.Y.S.2d 217, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-new-york-central-railroad-nyappdiv-1939.