Jacoby v. Platt

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Jacoby v. Platt

94 N.Y.S. 435

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 26, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 94 N.Y.S. 435 (Jacoby 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.

Bluebook

Jacoby v. Platt, 94 N.Y.S. 435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A lady having to return a hat from New York to the plaintiff, a milliner, in Newark, eight miles away, delivered it to one Búmford, a local expressman, who in turn delivered it in good order to the joint-stock association doing business under the style of United States Express Company, which in its receipt fore-fended liability for loss or damage unless proven “to have occurred from the * * * gross negligence of said company or their servants.” Uncontradictedly the hat was sent in a pasteboard box, familiar enough, packed therein with tissue paper, wrapped on the outside with paper, and when the express company delivered the parcel, after a delay of 10 days, it was as if it had been trampled upon, and the hat was ruined. Thus the plaintiff’s case was proven, and her judgment should not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

A lady having to return a hat from New York to the plaintiff, a milliner, in Newark, eight miles away, delivered it to one Búmford, a local expressman, who in turn delivered it in good order to the joint-stock association doing business under the style of United States Express Company, which in its receipt fore-fended liability for loss or damage unless proven “to have occurred from the * * * gross negligence of said company or their servants.” Uncontradictedly the hat was sent in a pasteboard box, familiar enough, packed therein with tissue paper, wrapped on the outside with paper, and when the express company delivered the parcel, after a delay of 10 days, it was as if it had been trampled upon, and the hat was ruined. Thus the plaintiff’s case was proven, and her judgment should not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 N.Y.S. 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacoby-v-platt-nyappterm-1905.