H. R Mallison & Co. v. Barrett

215 A.D. 524, 213 N.Y.S. 652, 1926 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11001
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 5, 1926·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

Clarke, P. J,

The facts are sufficiently stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Martin. The plaintiff is estopped (Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639) by its declared valuation of the five bales of silk of $1,375. It cannot recover $818.50 for the loss of one bale. ( United Lead Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 156 App. Div, 525; affd., 215 N. Y. 751.) The determination [525] appealed from should, therefore, be modified by directing that the judgment of the Municipal Court be modified by reducing the amount thereof as entered to the sum of $377.34, and as so modified affirmed, with costs to the appellant in this court and in the Appellate Term.

Dowling, Finch and McAvoy, JJ., concur; Martin, J., dissents.

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

H. R Mallison & Co. v. Barrett, 215 A.D. 524, 213 N.Y.S. 652, 1926 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11001 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

215 A.D. 524 (H. R Mallison & Co. v. Barrett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chenango Textile Corp. v. Willock
247 A.D. 638 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1936)
Mavis Hosiery Co. v. Pennsylvania Transportation Co.
135 Misc. 636 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1930)
Aronstein v. New York Central Railroad
132 Misc. 563 (New York City Court, 1928)