Schmidt v. Blood

9 Wend. 268
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1832
StatusPublished
Cited by57 cases

This text of 9 Wend. 268 (Schmidt v. Blood) 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
Schmidt v. Blood, 9 Wend. 268 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1832).

Opinion

By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

It appears to be well settled, thata warehouseman, or depositary of goods for hire,is responsible only for ordinary care, and js not liable for loss arising from accident when he is not in default; 2 Kent’s Comm. 441; 4 T. R. 481; Peake’s N. P. 114; 4 Esp.N. P. R. 262; and in Finucane v. Small, 1 Esp. N. P. R. 315, it was held that if goods be bailed to be kept for hire, if the compensation be for house-room, and not a reward for care and diligence, the bailee is only bound to take the same care of the goods as of his own, and if they be stolen or embezzled by his servant, without gross negligence on his part, he is not liable ; and 1 the onus of shewing negligence seems to be upon the plain- ' tiff, unless there is a total default in delivering or accounting for the goods. 7 Cowen, 500, note a. and cases there cited. 3 Taunt. 264. 5 Barn. & Cres. 322. 1 H. Black. 298. Jones on Bailment, 106, n. 40. 2 Salk. 655. 1 T. R. 33. The defendant’s claim for storage, therefore, is not prejudiced by the fact that a portion of the goods had been purloined or embezzled by the store-keeper or servant.

The defendants had a lien on the whole and every part of the hemp for their storage of the whole ; it was but one parcel ; the whole was deposited with them at the same time ; it was but one transaction. It is admitted that the defendants might have refused to deliver any portion of the hemp until their storage for that particular portion was paid; but having parted with all but six and a half tons, it is contended that they have no right to retain that for their charges in relation to the other portions. This cannot be ; it would be found most inconvenient in practice. Restricting the lien to services rendered in relation to the whole quantity deposited at the same time, it becomes a just and reasonable rule, giving effect undoubtedly to the actual intentions and understanding of the parties, and promoting the convenience of trade and business. 2 Kent’s Comm. 495, 6.

New trial granted.

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

Related

Brooks v. Flagg Bros.
553 F.2d 764 (Second Circuit, 1977)
Brooks v. Flagg Brothers, Inc.
553 F.2d 764 (Second Circuit, 1977)
Guild v. Atlantic-Third Corp.
18 Misc. 2d 635 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
Veihelmann v. Manufacturers Safe Deposit Co.
104 N.E.2d 888 (New York Court of Appeals, 1952)
Potomac Insurance v. Donovan
190 Misc. 892 (New York Supreme Court, 1948)
Castorina v. Rosen
49 N.E.2d 521 (New York Court of Appeals, 1943)
Castorina v. Rosen
265 A.D. 316 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1942)
Van Dike v. Pullman Co.
145 Misc. 452 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1932)
Slaughter v. Levy
257 S.W. 1063 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1924)
Bank of Hundred v. County Court of Wetzel County
120 S.E. 878 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1923)
Colburn v. Washington State Art Ass'n
141 P. 1153 (Washington Supreme Court, 1914)
Levine v. Delaware, L. & W. Railroad
134 N.Y.S. 217 (New York County Courts, 1911)
Hasbrouck v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.
95 N.E. 802 (New York Court of Appeals, 1911)
Hasbrouck v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
202 N.Y. 363 (New York Court of Appeals, 1911)
Allen v. Fulton Motor Car Co.
71 Misc. 190 (New York Supreme Court, 1911)
Parsons v. Clark
111 N.Y.S. 1133 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)
Simonoff v. Fox
46 Misc. 249 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1905)
Denver Public Warehouse Co. v. Munger
20 Colo. App. 56 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1904)
Knapp, Stout & Co. Co. v. McCaffrey
52 N.E. 898 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1899)
McCaffrey v. Knapp, Stout & Co.
74 Ill. App. 80 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 Wend. 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-blood-nysupct-1832.