McBride v. De Cozen Motor Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

McBride v. De Cozen Motor Co.

137 A. 558, 5 N.J. Misc. 552, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 176

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMay 21, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 137 A. 558 (McBride v. De Cozen Motor Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McBride v. De Cozen Motor Co., 137 A. 558, 5 N.J. Misc. 552, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 176 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Judgment was rendered for the defendant by the judge of the Second District Court of Newark, sitting without a jury, and from that judgment the plaintiff appeals.

Erom the state of the case agreed upon it appears that the plaintiff, Elsie M. McBride, owned an automobile which on May 37th, 1935, she placed in the defendant’s shop to be washed and adjusted. On the 30th of May, at seven o’clock in the evening, the defendant’s watchman returned and found the rear door open and the plaintiff’s car gone. This constituted the whole of the plaintiff’s case.

The defendant proved that on the morning of May 3Qth, at seven o’clock, all the doors and windows were locked; [553]*553that no employes were working on that day and no business was transacted; that on the return of the defendant’s watchman at five o’clock he found the back door open and the plaintiff’s car missing; that he examined the doors and windows and found no evidence of a forced entry; that all the bolts and locks were in good condition; that the office manager checked the cars in the garage on the night of May 29th, and again on the night of the 30th, and that the only car missing was that of the plaintiff; that about a year and a half before the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a bookkeeper.

The plaintiff then called one Kirby who testified that he went to the garage the third day after the theft and there was no evidence of a. forced entry.

The judgment should be affirmed. The transaction constituted a, bailment for mutual advantage and the failure of the defendant to return the car made a prima, facie case from which the trial judge could infer negligence. Kittay v. Cordasco, 4 N. J. Adv. R. 1631. He was, however, not obliged to so find. Hughes v. Atlantic City Railroad Co., 85 N. J. L. 212. The question presented was one of fact and from the conclusion of the trial judge no appeal will lie.

The judgment will be affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Judgment was rendered for the defendant by the judge of the Second District Court of Newark, sitting without a jury, and from that judgment the plaintiff appeals.

Erom the state of the case agreed upon it appears that the plaintiff, Elsie M. McBride, owned an automobile which on May 37th, 1935, she placed in the defendant’s shop to be washed and adjusted. On the 30th of May, at seven o’clock in the evening, the defendant’s watchman returned and found the rear door open and the plaintiff’s car gone. This constituted the whole of the plaintiff’s case.

The defendant proved that on the morning of May 3Qth, at seven o’clock, all the doors and windows were locked; [553]*553that no employes were working on that day and no business was transacted; that on the return of the defendant’s watchman at five o’clock he found the back door open and the plaintiff’s car missing; that he examined the doors and windows and found no evidence of a forced entry; that all the bolts and locks were in good condition; that the office manager checked the cars in the garage on the night of May 29th, and again on the night of the 30th, and that the only car missing was that of the plaintiff; that about a year and a half before the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a bookkeeper.

The plaintiff then called one Kirby who testified that he went to the garage the third day after the theft and there was no evidence of a. forced entry.

The judgment should be affirmed. The transaction constituted a, bailment for mutual advantage and the failure of the defendant to return the car made a prima, facie case from which the trial judge could infer negligence. Kittay v. Cordasco, 4 N. J. Adv. R. 1631. He was, however, not obliged to so find. Hughes v. Atlantic City Railroad Co., 85 N. J. L. 212. The question presented was one of fact and from the conclusion of the trial judge no appeal will lie.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A. 558, 5 N.J. Misc. 552, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcbride-v-de-cozen-motor-co-nj-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack