Kaplan v. Metropolitan Express Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaplan v. Metropolitan Express Co.

98 N.Y.S. 228

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 26, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 98 N.Y.S. 228 (Kaplan 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.

Bluebook

Kaplan v. Metropolitan Express Co., 98 N.Y.S. 228 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinions

O’GORMAN, J.

The plaintiffs delivered merchandise of the value of $-19.75 to the defendant for delivery to one Mendelson, in Yonkers. Mendelson testified that he never received the goods. The defendant offered no evidence. The defendant claims the evidence does not show nondelivery, and that, the court erred in not allowing an amendment to the answer alleging plaintiffs’ failure to notify defendant of the loss within 60 days.

Neither contention is well founded. The defendant^s printed receipts contained certain provisions which constitute a contract between the parties, and, among other things, required notice of loss within 60 days; but in the particular receipt in evidence the 60-day provision is lacking. A portion of the printed part is torn, and this doubtless embraced the reference to 60 days. Plaintiffs were not required under, the receipt which they held to give notice of their loss within 60 days, or any other definite period; but, even if the contract were as claimed by defendant, it is not clear that substantial justice would be promoted by the amendment, and therefore the court was not bound to allow it.

Judgment affirmed, with .costs.

NEWBURGER, J., concurs.

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

O’GORMAN, J.

The plaintiffs delivered merchandise of the value of $-19.75 to the defendant for delivery to one Mendelson, in Yonkers. Mendelson testified that he never received the goods. The defendant offered no evidence. The defendant claims the evidence does not show nondelivery, and that, the court erred in not allowing an amendment to the answer alleging plaintiffs’ failure to notify defendant of the loss within 60 days.

Neither contention is well founded. The defendant^s printed receipts contained certain provisions which constitute a contract between the parties, and, among other things, required notice of loss within 60 days; but in the particular receipt in evidence the 60-day provision is lacking. A portion of the printed part is torn, and this doubtless embraced the reference to 60 days. Plaintiffs were not required under, the receipt which they held to give notice of their loss within 60 days, or any other definite period; but, even if the contract were as claimed by defendant, it is not clear that substantial justice would be promoted by the amendment, and therefore the court was not bound to allow it.

Judgment affirmed, with .costs.

NEWBURGER, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 N.Y.S. 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaplan-v-metropolitan-express-co-nyappterm-1906.