Boehrer v. Juergens & Anderson Co.

• Decision Date: 05 November 1907
• Citation: 133 Wis. 426,113 N.W. 655
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: BOEHRER v. JUERGENS & ANDERSON CO.

133 Wis. 426

113 N.W. 655

BOEHRER

v.JUERGENS & ANDERSON CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Nov. 5, 1907.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; J. J. Fruit, Judge.

Action by Joseph Boehrer against the Juergens & Anderson Company to recover for the loss of certain jewelry. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The complaint, after alleging that the defendant was and is an Illinois corporation, located at Chicago, and engaged in the business of manufacturing jewelry and mounting precious stones, charges that on November 7, 1905, the plaintiff owned certain diamond rings and other jewelry of the value of $367.50, and on that day, at the request of the defendant and believing that the defendant would exercise care and diligence in handling the same, sent them by express to the defendant for the purpose of having them repaired and remounted by the defendant, and that defendant received the same knowing their value and became a bailee thereof for hire. The complaint then proceeds as follows: “That at the time of the sending and delivery of said goods to the defendant, as aforesaid, it was and for a long time has been and now is the custom in the jewelry trade to have packages of such value marked and valued at the sum of $50 or more, and at a sum approximating true value, in order to insure greater care and vigilance in the transportation, handling, and carrying of such packages by express companies, and in order to insure reimbursement to the owner for the value thereof, in case of loss or destruction in transit, all of which custom and usage defendant well knew and understood, and was bound to observe, and that defendant well knew, as the fact is, that it is a rule of express companies that, when packages are so valued, to take greater care in the carriage of the same, and for the safe and prompt delivery thereof, and that when so valued the express companies are insurers of the safe delivery thereof, and, in case of loss or destruction in transit, are bound to reimburse the owner for the value so placed thereon, and that this defendant at the time of soliciting the business impliedly represented and agreed to and with plaintiff (and that it was a part of the contract or terms of said bailment) that it would, through its officers, employés, or servants, mark and value all returned packages at their just and reasonable value, and that this plaintiff in sending said goods to and intrusting the defendant with the possession of said goods relied upon said representation and agreement, and that it then and there became and was the duty of the defendant when attempting to return or redeliver said goods to the plaintiff, after repairing and mounting the same, to cause the package containing the same to be valued at its just and true value, and to mark the same accordingly, and to communicate its true value to the express company, when delivered to such company for carriage and to take from said express company its written receipt, wherein said value would be truly stated, and to use care, diligence, and precaution in securing and insuring the safe return of said goods to the plaintiff. But the plaintiff alleges, upon information and belief, that the defendant wholly neglecting and disregarding his duty, obligation, and agreement in that behalf, on or about the 11th day of November,...