From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vocational Guidance Manuals v. United Newspaper

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 28, 1953
113 N.E.2d 299 (N.Y. 1953)

Summary

In Westphal the court refers to the attorney-client, principal and agent, husband and wife as confidential relationships where constructive trusts may be imposed, recognizing that "there may be others."

Summary of this case from Hunter v. Hunter

Opinion

Argued April 20, 1953

Decided May 28, 1953

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, EDER, J.

E. Douglas Hamilton and John G. McCarthy for United Newspaper Magazine Corporation and another, appellants.

W. Clyde O'Brien and Richard L. Turner for Gannett Co., Inc., appellant.

Samuel Wollan for respondent.


Order affirmed, with costs. Questions certified answered in the affirmative. No opinion.

Concur: LEWIS, Ch. J., CONWAY, DESMOND, FULD and FROESSEL, JJ. DYE, J., dissents and votes for reversal and dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complaint fails to establish a reasonable basis for holding the article defamatory as to this plaintiff, failing which no issue is presented for determination by a jury.


Summaries of

Vocational Guidance Manuals v. United Newspaper

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 28, 1953
113 N.E.2d 299 (N.Y. 1953)

In Westphal the court refers to the attorney-client, principal and agent, husband and wife as confidential relationships where constructive trusts may be imposed, recognizing that "there may be others."

Summary of this case from Hunter v. Hunter
Case details for

Vocational Guidance Manuals v. United Newspaper

Case Details

Full title:VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE MANUALS, INC., Respondent, v. UNITED NEWSPAPER…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 28, 1953

Citations

113 N.E.2d 299 (N.Y. 1953)
113 N.E.2d 299

Citing Cases

Jones v. Archibald

In holding that a cause of action was stated, Special Term said that All-Pro "breached its duty to supply to…

Hunter v. Hunter

Koenig v. Leas, supra; Koehler v. Haller (1915), 62 Ind. App. 8, 112 N.E. 527. Furthermore, it must be shown…