Majority
p. 1145MORZIERES, Respondent, v. VANNI et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department. July 27, 1896.)
Headnote
Action by Marguerite Morzieres against John Vanni and John Renoux to recover damages for injury to household property.Ullo, Ruebsamen, Cochran & Baldwin, for appellants.
Kantrowitz & Es-berg, for respondent.
The defendants were co-partners engaged in the business of trucking and moving goods for hire, and were common carriers. They were moving household furniture for the plaintiff, including china ware in a barrel. Defendant Renoux was carrying the barrel when the hoops gave way, and the barrel drop
p. 1146
ped, breaking the china. Defendant Vanni, after looking through the barrel, agreed that they would be responsible for it, and would pay §30. Upon this testimony the justice was justified m giving judgment for the plaintiff:. The injury occurred while the goods were in the hands of defendants, who could easily show that it was unavoidable, or the result of defective packing, for which they were not responsible, if such were the case. The giving way of the hoops was not necessarily the result of defective packing, but may have been the result of negligent handling, and yet defendants do not explain it. _ On the contrary, one of them admits responsibility for the injury, and the amount of it. This admission dispensed with further proof by plaintiff. It should be observed that defendant Vanni, who is said to have made the admission, was not called to deny it The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.