Case ID: ny_112/html/0668-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Danforth, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bryce Gray et al., Appellants, v. Abraham Rothschild, Impleaded, etc., Respondent.
    (Argued January 15, 1889;
    decided January 29, 1889.)
    Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made May 18, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant, Abraham Rothschild, entered upon an order sustaining a demurrer interposed by him to plaintiff’s complaint.
    This action was brought to recover damages for an alleged fraud.
    The complaint alleged, in substance, that the plaintiffs constituted seven different firms, each of which firms sold goods to defendants Charles M. and Jacob M. Rothschild. It was alleged, in support of their right to maintain a joint action, that the goods were sold upon a credit induced by means of false representations ; that the purchasers, together with the two other defendants, had entered into a conspiracy under which these goods and others were to be purchased on credit and the purchasers were to defraud the vendors out of the purchase-prices by removing, secreting and disposing of the goods, and that this conspiracy had been carried into execution. The grounds of demurrer were the misjoinder of parties and of causes of action.
    The following is the mem. of opinion :
    
      “ It may very well be that each plaintiff has a good cause of action against the defendants, but the plaintiffs have none common to all or jointly with each other. Each individual and each firm may have been defrauded by similar, although not the same representations, but the complaint shows that each has suffered separately, and its whole scope and meaning is inconsistent with the idea that the plaintiffs, or any two or more of them, are jointly prejudiced. As the objection appears upon the face of the complaint the demurrer was well taken.
    
      “ The judgment should be affirmed.”
    
      Henry L. Lamgdon for appellants.
    
      Otto Horwitz for respondent.
   Danforth, J.,

reads mem. for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.