Eitingon Schild Co. v. Baker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eitingon Schild Co. v. Baker

238 A.D. 583, 264 N.Y.S. 815, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9560

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 2, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D. 583 (Eitingon Schild Co. v. Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eitingon Schild Co. v. Baker, 238 A.D. 583, 264 N.Y.S. 815, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Townley, J.

This is an action against a bailee for hire to recover for damage to the subject of the bailment claimed to have been caused by negligence. The sufficiency of the complaint is challenged upon the ground that it does not contain a definite specification of the negligence charged and of the defendant’s duty.

The complaint is clearly sufficient. It alleges that defendant was negligent in the receiving and storing of the skins which were the subject of the bailment. It then pleads facts which support this charge of negligence. It alleges that the furs were delivered in good condition and returned in a damaged condition. This gives rise to a presumption sufficient to support plaintiff’s claim of negligence upon the trial. Certainly, plaintiff cannot be required to state more in its pleading than it is required to prove upon the trial.

The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, with costs, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to defendant to answer within twenty days from service of order upon payment of said costs.

Finch, P. J., Mehrell, O’Malley and Sherman, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order reversed, with costs, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to the defendant to answer within twenty days from service of order upon payment of said costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Townley, J.

This is an action against a bailee for hire to recover for damage to the subject of the bailment claimed to have been caused by negligence. The sufficiency of the complaint is challenged upon the ground that it does not contain a definite specification of the negligence charged and of the defendant’s duty.

The complaint is clearly sufficient. It alleges that defendant was negligent in the receiving and storing of the skins which were the subject of the bailment. It then pleads facts which support this charge of negligence. It alleges that the furs were delivered in good condition and returned in a damaged condition. This gives rise to a presumption sufficient to support plaintiff’s claim of negligence upon the trial. Certainly, plaintiff cannot be required to state more in its pleading than it is required to prove upon the trial.

The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, with costs, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to defendant to answer within twenty days from service of order upon payment of said costs.

Finch, P. J., Mehrell, O’Malley and Sherman, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order reversed, with costs, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to the defendant to answer within twenty days from service of order upon payment of said costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D. 583, 264 N.Y.S. 815, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eitingon-schild-co-v-baker-nyappdiv-1933.