Legal Opinion

Dohorty v. Madgett

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided October 15, 1885PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Trover for a valise and its contents, consisting of $334 in bills, and other property. Plea, not guilty. Trial by jury, June Term, 1884, Orange County, Rowell, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff-. The bailee is responsible only for gross negligence. Story Bailm. ss. 53, 58, 93; Spooner v. Mattoon, 40 Yt. 300. There was no conversion by the defendant. Tinker v. Morrill, 39 Yt. 477. The basis of the tort is the breach of the contract of bailment.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Ross, J.

This is an action of trover to recover for a valise and its contents, which the defendant and his wife, both, refused to deliver to the plaintiff on demand. There was no question but the plaintiff was the owner of the property, and had the right to its possession on demand as against the defendant. He was the hired servant of the defendant, and as such assigned a room, by the defendant in his house, in which to sleep and to keep his valise. His evidence tended to show, that on a certain occasion he delivered the valise, then in his room, and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

Sibley v. StorySupreme Court of Vermont · 1836
Shaw v. HallihanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1874
Boston Type & Stereotype Foundry v. SpoonerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1833

3Cited by3 opinions

Allen v. Berkshire Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1933
Economou v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1965
Underhill v. Rutland RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1916