Hirshberg v. Dinsmore
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court in the City of New York for the First Judicial District. The action was for “ damages for non-delivery of goods.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court in the City of New York for the First Judicial District. The action was for “ damages for non-delivery of goods.” The facts shown were: On November ,4th, 1882, at Newark, N. J., one Mercy delivered to defendants’ express company a package to be shipped to plaintiffs at New York, and received a receipt which contained the condition that in no event should the company be liable for any loss or damage unless the claim therefor should be presented to them in writing within thirty days after the date of the receipt in a statement to which the receipt…
1Opinion of the CourtJ. F. Daly, J.
[After stating the facts as above.]— There was some-discussion on the appeal as to whether this *430action was for breach of contract of the carrier or for conversion ; and whether, if for conversion, the carrier could avail himself of the condition in the contract providing that the claim for loss must be made within thirty days. The demand as stated in the return was for “ damages for nondelivery of goods." In Magnin v. Dinsmore (70 N. T. 410, 417), it was said that a mere non-delivery will not constitute a conversion; and it would seem that the plaintiff’s action is therefore stated on the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Express Co. v. CaldwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Southern Express Co. v. HunnicuttMississippi Supreme Court · 1877
- Smith v. DinsmoreNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1880
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kaiser v. HoeyCity of New York Municipal Court · 1888