From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jewelry v. Spivack

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
May 22, 1958
12 Misc. 2d 74 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)

Opinion

May 22, 1958

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, SAUL PRICE, J.

Samuel B. Ohlbaum for appellant.

Fred Queller for respondent.


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.

HOFSTADTER, J.P., HECHT and TILZER, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Jewelry v. Spivack

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
May 22, 1958
12 Misc. 2d 74 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
Case details for

Jewelry v. Spivack

Case Details

Full title:WINFRED JEWELRY, Appellant, v. "BEATRICE" SPIVACK, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: May 22, 1958

Citations

12 Misc. 2d 74 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
174 N.Y.S.2d 486

Citing Cases

Lipschutz v. Gordon Jewelry Corporation

This is particularly true with respect to the diamond industry. Winfred Jewelry v. Spivack, 12 Misc.2d 74,…

Hartog v. Mehle

In Nelkin v. Farber ( 196 Misc. 545, 546) the memorandum provided "in the event said property is damaged,…