Bonwit, Teller & Co. v. Hosford
City of New York Municipal Court
The nature and substance of the cause of action as stated upon the summons is as follows: “Action to recover the value of a fur coat which the defendant, her agent, servant or employee received from the plaintiff on or about the 12th day of December, 1918, and which the defendant, her agent, servant or employee has wholly failed and refused to deliver to the third party or to the plaintiff upon demand, pursuant to its obligations.”
1Opinion of the CourtLauer, J.
The evidence shows that a Mrs. Van Ripper, who resided in the defendant’s apartment house, purchased a fur coat from the plaintiff, a department store in the city of New York. The driver of the plaintiff took the coat to the defendant’s apartment house and delivered it to an employee of the defendant, who ran an elevator in the defendant’s apartment house, where Mrs. Van Ripper resided. The coat was never delivered to Mrs. Van Ripper. The evidence of the elevator man showed that he put it back of the telephone switchboard in the hall of the apartment house, from which place it disappeared.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Higgins v. Watervliet Turnpike & RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Porges v. United States Mortgage & Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Booth v. . LitchfieldNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Everdell v. CarringtonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
- Muller v. HillenbrandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917