From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williamson v. New York Central R.R. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 19, 1939
258 App. Div. 226 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)

Summary

In Williamson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 258 App. Div. 226, 16 N.Y.S.2d 217, it was held that the plaintiff's idea for the staging of a miniature railroad at the New York World's Fair was too abstract to be made the basis of a property right and that therefore no inquiry into the novelty of the idea was required.

Summary of this case from Matarese v. Moore-McCormack Lines

Opinion

December 19, 1939.

Appeal from Supreme Court of Queens County, KADIEN, J.

K.O. Mott-Smith, for the appellants.

Frank J. Lawkins, for the respondent.


Action for breach of an implied contract to compensate plaintiff for the disclosure to defendants of an alleged novel idea for the production and staging of a miniature railroad at the New York World's Fair.

The letters between the parties upon which the plaintiff's claim is predicated do not constitute an express contract to compensate the plaintiff. An implied contract to do so does not arise therefrom, because they merely contain an abstract idea which may not be made the subject of property right in the absence of protection thereof by an express contract prior to disclosure. ( Bristol v. E.L.A. Society, 132 N.Y. 264.) Plaintiff's idea never took on concrete form at the time of disclosure so as to give rise to a property right such as occurs where a literary or artistic creation available for advertising use or otherwise is involved. This view makes unnecessary passing on whether or not the plaintiff's idea was novel or commonplace.

The order denying appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice should be reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

LAZANSKY, P.J., HAGARTY, CARSWELL and TAYLOR, JJ., concur; CLOSE, J., not voting.

Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs.


Summaries of

Williamson v. New York Central R.R. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 19, 1939
258 App. Div. 226 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)

In Williamson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 258 App. Div. 226, 16 N.Y.S.2d 217, it was held that the plaintiff's idea for the staging of a miniature railroad at the New York World's Fair was too abstract to be made the basis of a property right and that therefore no inquiry into the novelty of the idea was required.

Summary of this case from Matarese v. Moore-McCormack Lines

In Williamson v. New York Central R.R. Co. (258 App. Div. 226) the plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendant describing in detail a plan for the production of a miniature railroad exhibit at the New York World's Fair. The letter was acknowledged and thereafter the railroad held such an exhibit which seemed to follow the suggestions of the plaintiff.

Summary of this case from Stone v. Liggett Myers Tobacco Co.

In Williamson v. New York Central R.R. Co. (supra) the plaintiff had described in writing a plan for the promotion of a miniature railroad exhibit and yet the court held that "plaintiff's idea never took on concrete form at the time of disclosure," so that no implied contract arose between the parties.

Summary of this case from Alberts v. Remington Rand, Inc.
Case details for

Williamson v. New York Central R.R. Co.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM F. WILLIAMSON, Respondent, v. THE NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 19, 1939

Citations

258 App. Div. 226 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)
16 N.Y.S.2d 217

Citing Cases

Stanley v. Columbia Broadcasting System

( Bank of America v. Hill, 9 Cal.2d 495, 498-499 [ 71 P.2d 258]; Los Angeles DrugCo., v. Superior Court, 8…

Plus Promotions, Inc. v. RCA Mfg. Co.

The theory of the second cause of action is that defendant is answerable for its implied promise to pay…