Hyperlawhypertext legal database Ruffin v. Ruggiero 31 N.Y.S. 826

← Cases

Ruffin v. Ruggiero

31 N.Y.S. 826 Court N.Y.C.P. Decision date 1895-01-07 English

Delivered by BOOKSTAVER, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 826
(10 Misc. Rep. 739.)
RUFFIN v. RUGGIERO.
(Common Fleas of New York City and Comity, General Term.
January 7, 1895.)

Headnote

Carriers—Failure to Deliver Goons.
In an action against an expressman for failure to deliver goods, it appeared that defendant, as directed by plaintiff, took the goods to the office of one B., and found a notice on the door that articles tor B. were to be delivered to the .ianitress. The .ianitress asked him what he had, to which he replied, “A machine box for Mr. B.” She then asked if that was all, to which he said, “Yes,” and went away. Held, that a finding that defendant delivered the goods in accordance with his directions was sustained by the evidence.
Appeal from Eighth district court.
Action by Eugenie Ruffin against Salvatore Ruggiero. There was a judgment in favor of defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before BOOKSTAVER and BISCHOFF, JJ.
Robert A. B. Dayton, for appellant.
Morris Putnam Stevens, for respondent.

This action is brought to recover damages from an expressman for failure to deliver a sewing machine. Plaintiff sent the machine to one Balliard, who was to receive it as her agent at his office address, No. 1300 Broadway. Balliard gave the bill of lading to defendant’s driver. Defendant brought the ma

p. 827
chine to 1300 Broadway, carried it up to the door of Balliard’s office, and found the door locked. On the door was a notice directing that articles for Balliard should be delivered to the janitress. It appears that defendant went up to Balliard’s office, and then returned and carried the machine upstairs. On his way back with the machine he met the janitress, who asked, “What have you got?” to which •he answered, “A machine box for Mr. Balliard.” She then asked if that was all he had, and he replied, “Yes,” and went away. The machine was subsequently stolen by parties unknown. We think the defendant delivered the machine in accordance with the directions given him, and his liability thereupon ceased. There was only a question of fact to be determined. The justice decided in favor of defendant, and we think the evidence fully sustains his finding. No error of law affecting the verdict was argued. The judgment is therefore affirmed, with costs.