Case Name: The Butterick Publishing Company, Appellant, v. Mistrot-Munn Company, Inc., Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-03-14
Citations: 217 N.Y. 678
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Butterick Publishing Company, Appellant, v. Mistrot-Munn Company, Inc., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 217
Pages: 678–678

Head Matter:
The Butterick Publishing Company, Appellant, v. Mistrot-Munn Company, Inc., Respondent.
Butterick Publishing Co. v. Mistrot-Munn Co., Inc., 167 App. Div. 632, affirmed.
(Argued February 23, 1916;
decided March 14, 1916.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 1, 1915, which reversed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term sustaining a demurrer to a separate defense set up in the answer and overruled said demurrer in an action to recover for defendant’s refusal to perform a contract for the sale of patented patterns and copyrighted publications at a fixed price. Defendant in its amended answer sets up as a separate and complete defense to said cause of action the so-called Texas AntiTrust Act, approved March.31, 1903, alleging that the contracts between the parties were by said statute absolutely void and unenforceable at the time of their execu ■ tion and of defendant’s refusal to perform.
The following question was certified: “Is the first separate and complete defense set up in the amended answer to the amended complaint sufficient in law upon the face thereof ? ”
Herbert Noble, Orlando P. Metcalf and James B. Sheehan for appellant.
George H. Savage, Joseph P. Cotton and George S. Franklin for respondent.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Scott, J., below, and question certified answered in the affirmative.
Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Seabury and Pound, JJ.