Frederick A. Stokes Co. v. Carell

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Frederick A. Stokes Co. v. Carell

138 N.Y.S. 536

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 6, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 138 N.Y.S. 536 (Frederick A. Stokes Co. v. Carell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frederick A. Stokes Co. v. Carell, 138 N.Y.S. 536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The action is based upon negligence. Defendant’s original possession was lawful, because the bankrupts were bailees of the plates. There was no adverse claim to the possession of the property until after it had been removed to the warehouse from the premises of the bankrupts. Such removal was within defendant’s powers as receiver, and was a lawful official act. Whatever damage or loss occurred as an incident to such removal and storage was not from any personal act of defendant, but was. due to the negligence of his servants, in whose selection there was no proof defendant was negligent. Under such circumstances, defendant is not personally liable. Donovan v. McAlpin, 85 N. Y. 185, 39 Am. Rep. 649; Cardot v. Barney, 63 N. Y. 281, 20 Am. Rep. 533; Sager Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 45 App. Div. 358, 60 N. Y. Supp. 849; Keating v. Stevenson, 21 App. Div. 604, 47 N. Y. Supp. 847.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The action is based upon negligence. Defendant’s original possession was lawful, because the bankrupts were bailees of the plates. There was no adverse claim to the possession of the property until after it had been removed to the warehouse from the premises of the bankrupts. Such removal was within defendant’s powers as receiver, and was a lawful official act. Whatever damage or loss occurred as an incident to such removal and storage was not from any personal act of defendant, but was. due to the negligence of his servants, in whose selection there was no proof defendant was negligent. Under such circumstances, defendant is not personally liable. Donovan v. McAlpin, 85 N. Y. 185, 39 Am. Rep. 649; Cardot v. Barney, 63 N. Y. 281, 20 Am. Rep. 533; Sager Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 45 App. Div. 358, 60 N. Y. Supp. 849; Keating v. Stevenson, 21 App. Div. 604, 47 N. Y. Supp. 847.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 N.Y.S. 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frederick-a-stokes-co-v-carell-nyappterm-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack