Seidel v. Hollander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seidel v. Hollander

246 A.D. 233, 285 N.Y.S. 233, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9471

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 7, 1936·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Assuming, without deciding, that plaintiff’s responsibility for the merchandise ceased upon shipment in this country, the defendant is nevertheless entitled to establish the condition of the merchandise on arrival in Europe, for the reason that such proof, if properly connected, will constitute some evidence of the condition of the merchandise at the time of shipment.

[234]*234The order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted.

Present—Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

Order reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Settle order on notice.

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

Per Curiam.

Assuming, without deciding, that plaintiff’s responsibility for the merchandise ceased upon shipment in this country, the defendant is nevertheless entitled to establish the condition of the merchandise on arrival in Europe, for the reason that such proof, if properly connected, will constitute some evidence of the condition of the merchandise at the time of shipment.

[234]*234The order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted.

Present—Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

Order reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Settle order on notice.

Seidel v. Hollander, 246 A.D. 233, 285 N.Y.S. 233, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9471 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

246 A.D. 233 (Seidel v. Hollander) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.