Walker v. Platt

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Walker v. Platt

34 Misc. 799, 69 N.Y.S. 943

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 Misc. 799 (Walker v. Platt) 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

Walker v. Platt, 34 Misc. 799, 69 N.Y.S. 943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant argues that we should reverse this judgment on the broad ground that injustice has been done. We find no evidence of it in the record. There is no dispute that the plaintiff’s trunk was delivered to the defendant in good condition and received by her opened and rifled of its contents; the value of the articles was not attacked. The sole material contested question of fact concern the circumstances under which the receipt was given; the plaintiff claims that it was left on the table in the hall without her knowledge; the defendant, that it was handed to a man who superintended the delivery of trunks. Even were we disposed to weigh the evidence in this case under recent statutory authority (Code, § 3063), we should arrive at the same conclusion as the justice below. Independently of that, however, the- plaintiff would be entitled to a full recovery under either version of the facts as the case is well within the principle of Springer v. Westcott, 166 N. Y. 117, containing the most recent statement of the law by the Court of Appeals. It does not satisfactorily appear in this case that the receipt was proffered as a contract, or accepted as such by the plaintiff, or is anything more than something whereby to trace and identify her property. The defendant did not prove that the plaintiff had knowledge of the contents of the paper, of the limitation contained therein, or even that she was advised that the acceptance of the receipt by her agent — if such was the fact — involved the acceptance of a special contract. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Bisohoee, P. J., Levektritt and Clarke, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The appellant argues that we should reverse this judgment on the broad ground that injustice has been done. We find no evidence of it in the record. There is no dispute that the plaintiff’s trunk was delivered to the defendant in good condition and received by her opened and rifled of its contents; the value of the articles was not attacked. The sole material contested question of fact concern the circumstances under which the receipt was given; the plaintiff claims that it was left on the table in the hall without her knowledge; the defendant, that it was handed to a man who superintended the delivery of trunks. Even were we disposed to weigh the evidence in this case under recent statutory authority (Code, § 3063), we should arrive at the same conclusion as the justice below. Independently of that, however, the- plaintiff would be entitled to a full recovery under either version of the facts as the case is well within the principle of Springer v. Westcott, 166 N. Y. 117, containing the most recent statement of the law by the Court of Appeals. It does not satisfactorily appear in this case that the receipt was proffered as a contract, or accepted as such by the plaintiff, or is anything more than something whereby to trace and identify her property. The defendant did not prove that the plaintiff had knowledge of the contents of the paper, of the limitation contained therein, or even that she was advised that the acceptance of the receipt by her agent — if such was the fact — involved the acceptance of a special contract. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Bisohoee, P. J., Levektritt and Clarke, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Misc. 799, 69 N.Y.S. 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-platt-nyappterm-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack