TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Metropolitan Milk and Cream Company v. City of New York

Metropolitan Milk and Cream Company, Appellant, v. the City of New York Et Al., Respondents

Metro. Milk & Cream Co. v. City of N.Y., 78 N.E. 1108 (N.Y. 1906)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 16, 1906
Citations
78 N.E. 1108186 N.Y. 5331906 N.Y. LEXIS 1183
Summary
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered. June 25, 1906, which affirmed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term overruling a demurrer to an x affirmative defense. The following questions were certified: “ Is the separate defense contained in the answer of the defendant The City of New York, and numbered VIII, insufficient in law upon the face thereof ? “ Is the- separate defense contained in the answer of the defendant The Department of Health of the City of New York, and numbered VIII, insufficient in law upon the face thereof ? ”

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Order affirmed, with costs ; questions certified answered in the negative ; no opinion.

Concur ; Ouli.en, Oh. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1907: 21947: 119072026peak 1907 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People ex rel. Lodes v. Department of Health82 N.E. 187 (N.Y. 1907) · Dissent
  2. Cannon v. Towner188 Misc. 955 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1947)
  3. People ex rel. Lodes v. Department of Health117 A.D. 856 (1907)

Most recent

  1. Cannon v. Towner188 Misc. 955 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1947)
  2. People ex rel. Lodes v. Department of Health82 N.E. 187 (N.Y. 1907) · Dissent
  3. People ex rel. Lodes v. Department of Health117 A.D. 856 (1907)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list