Schindler v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Schindler v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

58 Misc. 532, 109 N.Y.S. 723

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 58 Misc. 532 (Schindler v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty 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

Schindler v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 58 Misc. 532, 109 N.Y.S. 723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action was brought to recover upon a policy issued by the defendant to the plaintiff insuring the plaintiff against “ Direct loss by burglary, larceny or theft.”

On the morning of February 9, 1904, the plaintiff’s wife placed a bag containing jewelry in a closet. She locked the [533]*533closet, but left the key in the door. She was not at the house in the afternoon until about four-thirty or five o’clock. The servant in the employ of the plaintiff was also out during this afternoon and returned about half an hour before the plaintiff’s wife. At about eight o’clock in the evening, the plaintiff’s wife again went out. When she returned, the bag of jewelry, which she swears she left in the closet, was missing. There was no evidence upon the question of theft or burglary other than that recited above. The mere fact that the jewelry was missing from the closet where it had been placed was not, standing alone, sufficient to sustain a recovery under the terms of this policy.

The judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Gildebsleeve and Dayton, JJ., concur; Seabury, J., taking no part.

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

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

Per Curiam.

This action was brought to recover upon a policy issued by the defendant to the plaintiff insuring the plaintiff against “ Direct loss by burglary, larceny or theft.”

On the morning of February 9, 1904, the plaintiff’s wife placed a bag containing jewelry in a closet. She locked the [533]*533closet, but left the key in the door. She was not at the house in the afternoon until about four-thirty or five o’clock. The servant in the employ of the plaintiff was also out during this afternoon and returned about half an hour before the plaintiff’s wife. At about eight o’clock in the evening, the plaintiff’s wife again went out. When she returned, the bag of jewelry, which she swears she left in the closet, was missing. There was no evidence upon the question of theft or burglary other than that recited above. The mere fact that the jewelry was missing from the closet where it had been placed was not, standing alone, sufficient to sustain a recovery under the terms of this policy.

The judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Gildebsleeve and Dayton, JJ., concur; Seabury, J., taking no part.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 Misc. 532, 109 N.Y.S. 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schindler-v-united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-nyappterm-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack