Halyard v. Dechelman
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Nuell v. Forty-North Corporation (Mo. Ct. App. 1962)
- Toston v. McCracken (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)
- Phoenix Assurance Co. of New York v. Royale Investment Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1965)
- Kafka v. Levensohn (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1896)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
i A watchmaker, who receives a watch to repair for hire, is pound to use ordinary diligence for the safe keeping of the |vatch left with him for that purpose. Ordinary diligence is |hat degree of care in the preservation of a thing which a ¡prudent father of a family would use for the safe keeping of :it if it was his own. (Stopy on Bailments, § 429, 398.)
£ The law compels no mañ to do a vain and nugatory thing. |As the watch had been stolen and never regained, a demand |)f it would have been an act of folly. t It did not appear fthat any sum for repairs was due; and if there had been, it would have been subject to the same law as the watch, being payable or not as the watchmaker was guilty or not- of the want of ordinary diligence.
Reversed and remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.