Haney v. Geraghty

• Decision Date: 18 June 1925
• Docket Number: No. 18970.,18970.
• Citation: 273 S.W. 780
• Parties: HANEY v. GERAGHTY.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

273 S.W. 780

HANEY v. GERAGHTY.

No. 18970.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 18, 1925.

Rehearing Denied July 7, 1925.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; William H. Killoren, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Charlotte Haney against Charles L. Geraghty. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Frank C. O'Malley, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Goodbar, Tittman, Chapman & Custer, of St. Louis, for respondent.

DAUES, P. J.

This cause originated in the justice court on a statement for the loss of a suit case containing articles, itemized, of the value of $159.50. Judgment was rendered for the full amount against the defendant, appellant here, joined with two other defendants. Defendant Geraghty alone appealed to the Circuit Court, where plaintiff again recovered a verdict and judgment for $155, and defendant appeals.

Practically no dispute arises on the facts. It appears that plaintiff, in October, 1918, came to the city of St. Louis to attend the funeral of a relative. Plaintiff's sister, Mamie Furst, resided at 3804 Maffitt avenue, in said city, and plaintiff also had another sister who lived at 5607 Theodosia avenue in said city. When plaintiff arrived in the city, she had with her a suit case containing her wearing apparel. She first went to the sister living at 5607 Theodosia avenue, where she left the suit case, however, intending to stay with the sister at 3801 Maffitt avenue. Appellant was the undertaker conducting the funeral from his funeral chapel to the cemetery. Mrs. Furst, who lived at 3804 Matlitt avenue, engaged a limousine from the defendant, for the purpose of attending the furneral. The defendant, as is shown is the custom, filled the order through another undertaking company, which company furnished the limousine and the chauffeur to the defendant for the purpose of taking Mrs. Furst and her relatives to the funeral. It appears that after plaintiff put her suit case in the house of her sister on Theodosia avenue, she went to the funeral chapel and from that place for the first time got into the limousine as the guest of her sister. They attended the funeral, and after the burial, plaintiff and her sister and several other relatives got in the limousine and started home.

There is no dispute that the defendant conducted the funeral and had entire charge of same, and it is in evidence that chauffeurs, while attending funerals, are directed by the undertaker in charge to take the mourners to the places designated by them. While the party was driving from the cemetery, the chauffeur was instructed by some one in the car to drive to the Theodosia avenue address, where the suit case had been left by the plaintiff. Arriving at this address, plaintiff's brother-in-law, John Haney, did the physical act of going into the house and bringing the suit case out to the car. He deposited same in the front part of the machine, where he and the chauffeur sat. The chauffeur then removed the suit case by taking same out of the machine and putting it between the fender and the hood. When he did this, some one in the car asked him whether there was not danger of the suit case falling off and being lost, and the chauffeur assured them there was not; he said that that was the proper place to carry a grip. The suit case had been placed on the side of the machine where Haney was sitting, being the opposite side from where the chauffeur was seated, so that the chauffeur could not see it. The automobile then drove away to the Maffitt avenue address, and on the way the suit case was lost. None of the passengers were discharged at the Theodosia avenue address, the machine having been taken to this house in order to get the suit case of plaintiff to be taken with her to the home of her sister on Maffitt avenue.

While there is direct testimony that funeral cars ordinarly do not carry baggage, yet the defendant's witness testified that while it was the duty of chauffeurs in funerals to carry people to and from the cemetery, in certain cases where a corpse was taken to or from the station they did carry the suit cases of passengers, stating further that "chauffeurs have no instructions to carry suit cases, but I don't suppose there would be any serious objection to them doing it."

On the question of damage, plaintiff testified that the suit case contained her clothing, and that she gave Mr. Geraghty a correct list of the articles, with the value of each, at the time. She stated that her only experience was gained from the price she paid for the goods, new at the store, and that the actual loss was $159.50, including the cost of advertising for the lost property, which was $4.50. The verdict of the jury was for $155.

On cross-examination, plaintiff enumerated certain articles inquired about, and testified as to what she paid for same in the...