Case ID: ny_218/html/0658-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William W. Farley, as State Commissioner of Excise, Respondent, v. Charles Buchmuller et al., Appellants.
    
      Farley v. Buchmuller, 167 App. Div. 915, affirmed.
    (Argued April 24, 1916;
    decided May 9, 1916.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered March 1,1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury. The action was to recover upon a bond executed by the defendant Charles Buchmuller as principal and the defendant Illinois Surety Company as surety. The bond was given pursuant to sections 36 and 16 of the Liquor Tax Law (Cons. Laws, chap. 34), upon the transfer of a liquor tax certificate to the defendant Buchmuller, and the action is maintained pursuant to section 16 of the Liquor Tax Law. The bond is conditioned, as required by said section, that “ there is no material false statement in the application statement for said liquor tax certificate.” The complaint alleges in paragraph 8 thereof that the defendant, appellant, Buchmuller made certain material false statements in his application. The defendants answered separately and denied that the statements complained of were material false statements.
    
      Morton C. Fitch and Frederick E. Grant for appellants.
    
      Louis M. King and A. M. Sperry for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Chase, Collin, Hogan and Seabury, JJ. Dissenting: Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Hiscock and Cardozo, JJ.