Norris v. Manischewitz Broadway Central Hotel, Inc.

New York Supreme Court

Norris v. Manischewitz Broadway Central Hotel, Inc.

129 Misc. 329, 221 N.Y.S. 363, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 728

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedApril 20, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 129 Misc. 329 (Norris v. Manischewitz Broadway Central Hotel, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Norris v. Manischewitz Broadway Central Hotel, Inc., 129 Misc. 329, 221 N.Y.S. 363, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 728 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1927).

Pincite

Opinions

Delehanty, J.

The deposit of $1,940 by the plaintiff in a tin box in the safe of the defendant, as testified by plaintiff, was a delivery of such sum to the defendant and a compliance with section 200 of the General Business Law (as amd. by Laws of 1923, chap. 417).

The deposit of such money was made by putting in said tin drawer or compartment in the defendant’s safe a money belt in which was contained the said sum of money. No disclosure was made by plaintiff to the defendant of the contents of the deposit. No special agreement of liability on the part of the defendant was made in writing with the defendant, and, therefore, as claimed by defendant’s counsel on the trial the liability of the defendant under the proofs in this case and the statute could not exceed the sum of $500. The mere fact that the plaintiff requested the defendant to give him a receipt for the package, and that the defendant replied that his key to the tin box would be his receipt was not a special agreement in writing by which the liability of the defendant for the contents of the package was extended beyond $500. Had the plaintiff informed the defendant of the contents of the package and that he was depositing a sum of money in excess of $500 and the defendant had then told the plaintiff, upon the request for a receipt, that his key was a receipt, there might have been a question for the jury to determine whether by such action of the defendant it had waived the provisions of the statute as to its responsibility beyond the sum of $500. (Bendetson v. French, 46 N. Y. 266, 269, 270.)

Judgment and order reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

Delehanty, J.

The deposit of $1,940 by the plaintiff in a tin box in the safe of the defendant, as testified by plaintiff, was a delivery of such sum to the defendant and a compliance with section 200 of the General Business Law (as amd. by Laws of 1923, chap. 417).

The deposit of such money was made by putting in said tin drawer or compartment in the defendant’s safe a money belt in which was contained the said sum of money. No disclosure was made by plaintiff to the defendant of the contents of the deposit. No special agreement of liability on the part of the defendant was made in writing with the defendant, and, therefore, as claimed by defendant’s counsel on the trial the liability of the defendant under the proofs in this case and the statute could not exceed the sum of $500. The mere fact that the plaintiff requested the defendant to give him a receipt for the package, and that the defendant replied that his key to the tin box would be his receipt was not a special agreement in writing by which the liability of the defendant for the contents of the package was extended beyond $500. Had the plaintiff informed the defendant of the contents of the package and that he was depositing a sum of money in excess of $500 and the defendant had then told the plaintiff, upon the request for a receipt, that his key was a receipt, there might have been a question for the jury to determine whether by such action of the defendant it had waived the provisions of the statute as to its responsibility beyond the sum of $500. (Bendetson v. French, 46 N. Y. 266, 269, 270.)

Judgment and order reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 Misc. 329, 221 N.Y.S. 363, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norris-v-manischewitz-broadway-central-hotel-inc-nysupct-1927.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack