Case Name: The Buffalo Lubricating Oil Company (Limited), Respondent, v. The Standard Oil Company of New York, Impleaded, etc., Appellant; The Same, Respondent, v. The Acme Oil Company, Impleaded, etc., Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1887-07-01
Citations: 106 N.Y. 669
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Buffalo Lubricating Oil Company (Limited), Respondent, v. The Standard Oil Company of New York, Impleaded, etc., Appellant. The Same, Respondent, v. The Acme Oil Company, Impleaded, etc., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 106
Pages: 669–670

Head Matter:
The Buffalo Lubricating Oil Company (Limited), Respondent, v. The Standard Oil Company of New York, Impleaded, etc., Appellant. The Same, Respondent, v. The Acme Oil Company, Impleaded, etc., Appellant.
An action to recover damages caused by conspiracy may be maintained against a corporation.
(Argued June 22, 1887;
decided July 1, 1887.)
These actions were brought to recover damages alleged to have been caused by a conspiracy between the defendants to injure plaintiff. The two corporations defendant, demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state a cause of action as against them.
The following is the mem, of opinion:
“ Per Curiam. We entertain no doubt that an action against a corporation may be maintained to recover damages caused by conspiracy. (Morton v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 34 Hun, 366; affirmed, 103 N. Y. 645; Reed v. Home Savings Bank, 130 Mass. 443; Krulevitz v. Eastern R. R. Co., 140 Mass. 575; Western News Co. v. Wilmarch, 33 Kan. 510.) If actions can be maintained against corporations for malicious prosecution, libel, assult and battery and other torts, we can perceive no reason for holding that actions may not be maintained against them for conspiracy. It is well settled by the authorities cited, that the malice and wicked intent needful to sustain such actions may be imputed to corporations.
“ A careful scrutiny of the complaint in each action has convinced us that sufficient facts are alleged to show that the appellant was a party to the conspiracy set forth, and that sufficient facts are therefore alleged in the complaint to show a cause of action against it.
“ The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with leave to the appellant to withdraw its demurrer and answer the complaint, upon payment within twenty days of the plaintiff’s costs subsequent to the interposition of the demurrer.”
George J. Sioard for appellants.
AdeTbert Moot for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Ouriam
mem. for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.