Case ID: ny_224/html/0607-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles N. Crittenton Company, Respondent, v. The City of New York et al., Appellants.
    
      Crittenton Co. v. City of New York, 178 App. Div. 824, affirmed.
    (Argued June 5, 1918;
    decided October 15, 1918.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 25, 1917, in favor of plaintiff upon the submission of a controversy under section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff sought to restrain the defendants from enforcing sections 116 and 117 of the Sanitary Code of the city of New York which regulate the sale of proprietary and patent medicines in that city and among other things require that “ The names of the ingredients of every such medicine, to which the therapeutic effects claimed are attributed, and the names of all' other ingredients, eexcpt such as are physiologically inactive, shall be registered in the department of health in such manner as the regulations of Ihe board of health may prescribe.” The Appellate Division held the provisions invalid. _
    
      
      William P. Burr, Corporation Counsel (Terence Farley and John F. O’Brien of counsel) for appellants.
    
      George W. Wickersham, Harry B. Thompson and Francis H. McAdoo for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, without costs, on opinion of Cardozo, J., in Fougera & Co. v. City of New York (224 N. Y. 269).

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Cuddeback, Hogan and Cardozo, JJ. Concur in result: Chase, Collin and McLaughlin, JJ.