Goldbowitz v. Metropolitan Express Co.
This text of 91 N.Y.S. 318 (Goldbowitz v. Metropolitan Express Co.) 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.
Opinions
This case comes up on an agreed statement of facts, in which statement counsel have agreed that the action is for a conversion.
Plaintiff delivered to the defendant a case containing merchandise, consigned to one Feinstein, 36 Orchard street, this city. The defendant failed to deliver the goods, and, when asked for the return of the same, claimed that they had been lost. This does not constitute conversion of the goods. Rubin v. Wells, Fargo Ex. Co. (Sup.) 85 N. Y. Supp. 1108.
Judgment reversed. New trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
91 N.Y.S. 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldbowitz-v-metropolitan-express-co-nyappterm-1904.