Gilson v. Pa. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 October 1914 |
| Citation | 92 A. 59,86 N.J.L. 446 |
| Parties | GILSON v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from District Court of Jersey City.
Action by Herbert Clark Gilson against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial awarded.
Argued June term, 1914, before TRENCHARD and BERGEN, JJ.
Vredenburgh, Wall & Carey, of Jersey City, for appellant.
Herbert Clark Gilson, of Jersey City, in pro. per.
This was an action brought to recover the value of an overcoat which disappeared after plaintiff had hung it upon a hook a few feet from where he had seated himself in defendant's restaurant. At the trial it appeared that the defendant's restaurant is at its terminal in Jersey City, and is of the "quick lunch" type. It is about 60 feet long by about 40 feet wide. It consists of a counter in the center of the room, somewhat in the shape of a horseshoe, around which on the outside are provided stationary stools on which patrons may sit while eating lunch. There were no tables or chairs. Three or four "clothes trees" were provided about 25 feet apart around the room. There was no checkroom, but the cashier would if requested, and sometimes did, take charge of overcoats for patrons. In conspicuous places on the walls were a number of printed notices, about 18 inches long, about 14 inches wide, containing the words "Not responsible for loss of coats, hats, umbrellas," etc., the letters being from an inch and a quarter to an inch and a half in height. The signs were near the clothes trees, and were of sufficient size to be seen across the room. The plaintiff had patronized the defendant's restaurant almost daily for 20 years.
On December 2, 1913, the plaintiff entered the restaurant and hung his coat on one of the clothes trees a few feet back of the stool on which he seated himself to eat his lunch, and after he had finished eating, he discovered that his coat, which was comparatively new, was missing, and that in its place was another coat approximately the same size as plaintiff's, but showing much evidence of wear. He then reported the loss to the steward. Plaintiff hung up the coat himself. He did not ask the cashier to take charge of it, nor did he place it in the physical possession of anybody connected with defendant's restaurant, nor did he in any way bring his coat to the attention of any of defendant's servants or employes until after the coat had disappeared. The first that defendant knew anything about the coat was after its loss. Plaintiff testified that his coat was within reach, and that he could go to it and take anything from the pockets or otherwise use the coat without requiring any act on the part of the defendant or its servants.
The learned trial judge, sitting without a Jury, gave judgment for the plaintiff. We are of the opinion that the judgment cannot stand. We agree with the trial judge that, under the proofs, "the right to recover depends on whether the defendant became bailee of the plaintiff's overcoat," but we do not agree that there was a bailment.
This case is much like Wentworth v. Riggs, 159 App. Div. 899, 143 N. Y. Supp. 955. Therein...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sgro v. Getty Petroleum Corp., Civ. A. No. 91-2007 (MLP).
...233, 192 A. 36 (E. & A.1937); Cerreta v. Kinney Corp., 50 N.J.Super. 514, 517, 142 A.2d 917, 919 (App.Div.1958); Gilson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 86 N.J.L. 446, 92 A. 59 (1914), aff'd, 87 N.J.L. 690, 94 A. 1102 (E. & A.1915); see also Bill Bell, Inc. v. Ramsey, 284 S.W.2d 244, 247 (Tex.Civ.Ap......
-
Donegal Steel Foundry Co. v. Accurate Products Co.
...person under an obligation to return or deliver it to another after some special purpose is accomplished," Gilson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 86 N.J.L. 446, 92 A. 59, 60 (Sup.Ct.1914). See generally 3 Seltzer N.J.Law 12-156 (1971). In his charge to the jury, the trial judge below adopted this l......
-
J. L. Querner Truck Lines, Inc. v. Safeway Truck Lines, Inc.
...326 (App.Div.1950), affirmed 6 N.J. 81, 77 A.2d 315 (1950); Brown, Personal Property, 225, 230 (1936). See Gilson v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 86 N.J.L. 446, 92 A. 59 (Sup.Ct.1914), affirmed 87 N.J.L. 690, 94 A. 1102 (E. & A.1915). Physical control of the property as well as intent to exercise......
-
Jersey City v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.
...53 A.2d 640.) Cf. Crown Can Co. v. Division of Tax Appeals, 135 N.J.L. 517, 52 A.2d 838 (Sup.Ct.1947). In Gilson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 86 N.J.L. 446, 448, 92 A. 59, 60 (Sup.Ct.1914), affirmed 87 N.J.L. 690, 94 A. 1102 (E. & A.1915), Justice Trenchard stated that a bailment 'consists in th......