Majority
p. 379(20 Misc. Rep. 659.) MAY v. GUNTHER et al. (City Court of New York, General Term. July 2, 1897.) Argued before VAN WYCK, O. J., and McCARTHY and SOHUCHMAN, JJ.
Headnote
Bailment—Defective Wore—Damages.When a garment is delivered to workman to be altered or repaired, and the work of alteration or repair is so unskillfully done that the garment is rendered unfit for the owner’s.use, such owner may refuse to accept it, and may recover its value from the workman to whom it was delivered, the measure of damages not being limited to the difference in value of the garment before and after the unskillful alteration.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by Adelaide May against Frederick Gunther and others, From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying a new trial, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Perkins & Jackson, for appellants.
Atchinson & Bower, for respondent.
The verdict of the jury for plaintiff is a fineb ing that she bought of defendants, who are well-known dealers in
p. 380
furs, and manufacturers, makers, and repairers of fur garments, a seal-skin sack, for which she paid them $500; that thereafter she delivered this seal-skin sack to them, under an agreement by which they undertook to remodel, refit, and retrim the same with sable fur, for the agreed price of $170 or $185, they to furnish the sable fur; that they did remodel and retrim the same with sable fur, but in such an unworkmanlike manner as to render it entirely worthless to plaintiff, in that it was remade so small that she could not get it on; and that they refused to enlarge it, unless she would pay an additional sum for sufficient seal skin to supply that which they had negligently cut out of the garment; and that, upon her refusal to pay any more than the agreed price of $185, she was told by them to go ahead to court. This verdict is not against the evidence or weight of evidence. However, appellants, who still retain the sack delivered by her, and retrimmed with sable fur supplied by them, contend that the verdict of $500 should not stand, because by their proof it was shown that the sack, when delivered to them, was worth as much, if not more, than the $500 which she originally paid for it, and that hence she sustained no damage. The rule of damage is that if a lady furnishes 20 yards of silk to a- dressmaker, the latter agreeing, for a fixed price, to make the dress and supply all the trimmings, but doing her work in such an unskillful manner as to produce an absolute misfit, the lady can refuse to accept the dress, and sue the dressmaker for the value of the silk; and so, too, if a gentleman should purchase a pair of pants which were an inch too long, and take them to a tailor, who measured him, and agreed, for a fixed price, to ..make the proper alteration, but, by mistake, cut off ten inches, instead of one, the gentleman would not be required to pay the tailor, and accept a return of the pants, and to sue the tailor for the difference between their value as a pair of knee breeches and their value as a pair of pants, but could refuse their return, and sue for their value when delivered to the tailor. In this case the jury have found that defendants have made an absolute misfit of this seal-skin garment, thereby rendering it wholly unfit for plaintiff’s use, and that defendants’ counterclaim for the $185 was not sustained by proof.
The judgment and order are affirmed, with costs. All concur.