Schofield v. New York Central Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schofield v. New York Central Railroad

239 A.D. 848

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D. 848 (Schofield v. New York Central Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schofield v. New York Central Railroad, 239 A.D. 848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. The plaintiff was entitled to a delivery, as a consequence of custom, at the Christmas tree market. The jury were free to find that there was no wrongful delivery herein, on the theory that no custom was established or that custom had established a market prior to 1927 between Thirty-third and Thirty-seventh streets, but that in 1928 the Christmas tree market was enlarged so as to include Forty-first street, [849]*849and that the Forty-first street area in the market was the most active part of the market and the most crowded with cars of various shippers of trees, and, therefore, a delivery at that point was in keeping with the bill of lading as enlarged or modified by custom. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. The plaintiff was entitled to a delivery, as a consequence of custom, at the Christmas tree market. The jury were free to find that there was no wrongful delivery herein, on the theory that no custom was established or that custom had established a market prior to 1927 between Thirty-third and Thirty-seventh streets, but that in 1928 the Christmas tree market was enlarged so as to include Forty-first street, [849]*849and that the Forty-first street area in the market was the most active part of the market and the most crowded with cars of various shippers of trees, and, therefore, a delivery at that point was in keeping with the bill of lading as enlarged or modified by custom. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D. 848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schofield-v-new-york-central-railroad-nyappdiv-1933.