Ætna Insurance Co. v. Marble Hill Garage, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ætna Insurance Co. v. Marble Hill Garage, Inc.

146 Misc. 377, 262 N.Y.S. 93, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1469

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 1, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 146 Misc. 377 (Ætna Insurance Co. v. Marble Hill Garage, Inc.) 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

Ætna Insurance Co. v. Marble Hill Garage, Inc., 146 Misc. 377, 262 N.Y.S. 93, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On the former trial defendant produced ample evidence of due care on its part and plaintiff gave no evidence to contradict this. This court thereupon reversed a judgment in plaintiff’s favor because it had not met the burden of proof which the law cast upon it. The presumption in plaintiff’s favor had been overcome by defendant’s uncontradicted proof. On the present trial defendant rested without offering any proof whatever. Assuming that plaintiff’s present proof showed that- the bailed chattel had been stolen from defendant and damaged by the thief, this, under the authorities, did not suffice to relieve defendant as it was required to show a loss by an occurrence beyond its control, and this meant proof by it of the circumstances of the loss and at least prima facie evidence of due care on its part. (Ouderkirk v. Central National Bank, 119 N. Y. 263; Federal Ins. Co. v. Lindsley, 132 Misc. 54.) On the present record plaintiff was entitled to judgment.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for the plaintiff for $158.97, with interest and costs.

All concur; present, Levy, Callahan and Untermyer, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

On the former trial defendant produced ample evidence of due care on its part and plaintiff gave no evidence to contradict this. This court thereupon reversed a judgment in plaintiff’s favor because it had not met the burden of proof which the law cast upon it. The presumption in plaintiff’s favor had been overcome by defendant’s uncontradicted proof. On the present trial defendant rested without offering any proof whatever. Assuming that plaintiff’s present proof showed that- the bailed chattel had been stolen from defendant and damaged by the thief, this, under the authorities, did not suffice to relieve defendant as it was required to show a loss by an occurrence beyond its control, and this meant proof by it of the circumstances of the loss and at least prima facie evidence of due care on its part. (Ouderkirk v. Central National Bank, 119 N. Y. 263; Federal Ins. Co. v. Lindsley, 132 Misc. 54.) On the present record plaintiff was entitled to judgment.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for the plaintiff for $158.97, with interest and costs.

All concur; present, Levy, Callahan and Untermyer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 Misc. 377, 262 N.Y.S. 93, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tna-insurance-co-v-marble-hill-garage-inc-nyappterm-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack