Ullmann v. Fuerth
This text of 150 Misc. 125 (Ullmann v. Fuerth) 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.
Opinions
It was error for the trial court to charge that when plaintiff made out a prima facie case the burden of proof was on the defendant to show the disposition of the merchandise •— to show that it had been returned. The action being one by a bailor against a bailee for breach of contract of bailment and the issue tried being whether or not the bailee had returned the goods, the plaintiff (bailor) had the burden of establishing the failure to return.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.
Levy and Callahan, JJ., concur; Lydon, J., dissents.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
150 Misc. 125, 269 N.Y.S. 25, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ullmann-v-fuerth-nyappterm-1933.