Toplitz v. Timmins

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Toplitz v. Timmins

88 N.Y.S. 946

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 23, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 88 N.Y.S. 946 (Toplitz v. Timmins) 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

Toplitz v. Timmins, 88 N.Y.S. 946 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLEAN, J.

It appears that the plaintiff stored with the defendant certain barrels and cases—household effects—and withdrew them in the first week of January, when, in her presence, they were loaded into a wagon, which she accompanied from the warehouse to her residence, two blocks away; that upon examination it was found that one of the barrels and one of the cases were not hers, having been substituted for those belonging to her. She testified that she notified the defendant of her loss and the substitution on the day following, and that he refused to make her damage good. The evidence submitted for the defendant tended to show that he had satisfied his duties as bailee by the exercise of ordinary care. Whether or not the defendant duly excused himself was properly left to the jury, for, “where agreement of storage and the receipt of goods has been admitted, and evidence [947]*947given to support failure to deliver, a prima facie case of negligence has been made out.” Mautner v. The Terminal Warehouse Co., 25 Misc. Rep. 729, 55 N. Y. Supp. 603.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

MacLEAN, J.

It appears that the plaintiff stored with the defendant certain barrels and cases—household effects—and withdrew them in the first week of January, when, in her presence, they were loaded into a wagon, which she accompanied from the warehouse to her residence, two blocks away; that upon examination it was found that one of the barrels and one of the cases were not hers, having been substituted for those belonging to her. She testified that she notified the defendant of her loss and the substitution on the day following, and that he refused to make her damage good. The evidence submitted for the defendant tended to show that he had satisfied his duties as bailee by the exercise of ordinary care. Whether or not the defendant duly excused himself was properly left to the jury, for, “where agreement of storage and the receipt of goods has been admitted, and evidence [947]*947given to support failure to deliver, a prima facie case of negligence has been made out.” Mautner v. The Terminal Warehouse Co., 25 Misc. Rep. 729, 55 N. Y. Supp. 603.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 N.Y.S. 946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toplitz-v-timmins-nyappterm-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack