Winfred Jewelry v. Spivack

12 Misc. 2d 74, 174 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3266
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided May 22, 1958·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This matter does not involve an ordinary bailment, in view of the fact that by the terms of the receipt which defendant signed for the merchandise she assumed “ risk of all hazards ”. Under the circumstances, plaintiff was not required to prove fault or negligence on defendant’s part.

Since defendant failed to return the merchandise as agreed, plaintiff was entitled to recover the value thereof and the judgment in favor of defendant may not be permitted to stand.

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff as prayed for in the complaint, with costs; plaintiff, however, not to be entitled to body execution.

Hopstadter, J. P., Hecht and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Winfred Jewelry v. Spivack, 12 Misc. 2d 74, 174 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3266 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

12 Misc. 2d 74 (Winfred Jewelry v. Spivack) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lipschutz v. Gordon Jewelry Corporation
373 F. Supp. 375 (S.D. Texas, 1974)
Hartog v. Mehle
14 A.D.2d 336 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)