Case ID: ny_242/html/0521-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harry Walters, Respondent, v. Clairemont Sterilized Egg Company et al., Defendants, and Willis G. Howard, Appellant.
    
      Pleading — sufficiency of complaint in action to recover for unlawful interference with business.
    
    
      Walters v. Clairemont Sterlized Egg Co., 215 App. Div. 680, affirmed.
    (Argued January 8, 1926,
    decided February 24, 1926.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered October 30, 1925, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion by defendant for judgment on the pleadings. The following question was certified: “ Does the complaint herein state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against said defendant? ” The action was to recover for an alleged unlawful interference with plaintiff’s business. The complaint alleged that defendant, appellant, canvassed the egg trade, including the customers and prospective customers of the plaintiff and threatened such dealers and customers and prospective customers that if they entered into any agreement with the plaintiff to process eggs for them or had any business dealings or relations with the plaintiff whatsoever, the defendants would institute legal action against such dealers and enjoin the plaintiff from carrying out any such contracts and from sterilizing or processing any eggs for such dealers and claimed and represented to such dealers that the plaintiff was infringing a patent or patents owned by the defendant, Clairemont Sterilized Egg Company, and falsely and wrongfully stated and represented to such dealers that the process employed by the plaintiff was of no value and that by its use the eggs so treated would be inevitably spoiled, and that the liquid so used by the plaintiff in such process was injurious to the eggs and would spoil them, all of which statements and representations, to defendant’s knowledge, were false and untrue.
    
      Edward E. Hoenig for appellant.
    
      Benjamin E. Messier for respondent.
   ' Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Pound, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ. Absent: Cardozo, J.