Goodfield v. Platt
This text of 130 N.Y.S. 180 (Goodfield v. Platt) 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.
Opinion
Plaintiffs shipped a mandrel of greater value than $50 by defendant express company. A stipulation in the case reads:
“On the 11th day of November, 1907, pursuant to the terms of an agreement in writing, then and there entered into by and between the respective parties to this action, a certain mandrel was delivered to the defendant. * * * ”
[181]*181The mandrel was addressed to a destination in New Jersey, but was not delivered till over a month later. Plaintiff was allowed to prove loss of profits upon contracts for goods which were to have been made upon a machine of which the mandrel was an essential part, amounting' to over $1,000. The agreement mentioned in the stipulation was the customary express company receipt, with the $50 limitation of liability.
Regardless of other considerations which appear in the case, the points above alluded to compel a reversal, and a new trial, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
130 N.Y.S. 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodfield-v-platt-nyappterm-1911.