New York Court of Appeals, 1876

Fairfax v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided September 19, 1876 · RAPALLO, J.

67 N.Y. 11; 1876 N.Y. LEXIS 336

Cases that cite this one

23 later published cases cite this decision.

Hasbrouck v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co. (N.Y. 1911)
Shaw v. Citizens Casualty Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1934)
Van Dike v. Pullman Co. (City of New York Municipal Court 1932)
Hasbrouck v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad (N.Y. 1911)
Claflin v. . Meyer (N.Y. 1878)
Levine v. Manhattan Beach Bathing Parks Corp. (City of New York Municipal Court 1934)
Mayer v. Yellow Cab Co. (Philadelphia County Municipal Court 1931)
Saint Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. E. H. Trice Motor Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1922)
Strong v. Security Storage & Warehouse Co. (New York Supreme Court 1919)
Hill Steamboat Line v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad (City of New York Municipal Court 1916)
Colburn v. Washington State Art Ass'n (Wash. 1914)
Regan v. Burr & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1913)
Robinson v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1911)
Hasbrouck v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1910)
Polack v. O'Brien (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1906)
Evans v. New York & P. S. S. Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1906)
Kafka v. Levensohn (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1896)
Stewart v. . Stone (N.Y. 1891)
Canfield v. . Baltimore Ohio R.R. Co. (N.Y. 1883)
Tex. & Pacif. R. R. v. Morse (Tex. App. 1883)
Curtis v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad (N.Y. 1878)
Fairfax v. . N.Y.C. and H.R.R.R. Co. (N.Y. 1878)
Fairfax v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad (N.Y. 1878)

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

We think this judgment must be reversed upon the ground that it clearly appears that the portmanteau was taken in charge by the defendant and transported to New York, and there deposited by it in its baggage-room. The defendant thus incurred the responsibility of a warehouseman, at least, without regard to the question which has been argued whether it became liable as a common carrier. When the plaintiff demanded the article it had disappeared, and no account is given of the cause of such disappearance. This is prima facie evidence of negligence. (Steers v. Liv., N.Y. and P. Sts. Co., 57 N.Y., 1.) The facts proved show that the loss was quite as likely to have arisen from a misdelivery as from theft. There was no evidence that there had been any burglary or larceny in the room, or that any other baggage was missing. It is true that the person in charge of the baggage-room testifies that although he personally made all the deliveries he did not deliver this portmanteau to any one; still, if he delivered it by mistake, it is quite possible that he would have no recollection of having done so; and the facts testified to by him, if he is accurate in his statements, show that it is scarcely possible that the portmanteau could have got out of the room without his having delivered it.

Upon this evidence the question of negligence was one of fact which should have been submitted to the jury, as requested by the plaintiff's counsel. The proof of the general care, with which the baggage-room and its contents were guarded, was *Page 15 not sufficient to establish conclusively that there was no want of care in this particular instance. (Burnell v. The N.Y. Cen.R.R. Co., 45 N.Y., 184.)

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

All concur.

Judgment reversed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.