Legal Opinion
Veihelmann v. Manufacturers Safe Deposit Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided March 13, 1952PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Loughran, Ch. J.
The gist of the complaint herein can be stated in this single sentence: Ten thousand dollars in currency that had been placed by the plaintiff in a safe-deposit box which she had rented from the defendant company was stolen from that box in consequence of the company’s negli*529gence. The relief demanded by the plaintiff is a judgment for the asserted $10,000 money loss, with interest and costs.
Thus this action was one to recover a sum of money only and, that being so, the issues were properly tried before a jury and were properly submitted to them by the Trial Judge (see N. Y.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Loewinthan v. Le VineNew York Court of Appeals · 1949
- Salt Springs National Bank v. SloanNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Mead v. . ParkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Veihelmann v. Manufacturers Safe Deposit Co.New York Supreme Court · 1950
3Cited by15 opinions
- Procter & Gamble Distributing Co. v. Lawrence American Field Warehousing Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1965
- Vanderhule v. BerinsteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
- Sun Yau Ko v. Lincoln Savings BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Procter & Gamble Distributing Co. v. Lawrence American Field Warehousing Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
- Farkas v. Cedarhurst Natural Food Shoppe, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.