Lebkeucher v. Pa. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 March 1922 |
| Citation | 116 A. 323 |
| Parties | LEBKEUCHER v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from District Court, Essex County.
Action by Emma M. Lebkeueher against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and the defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued November term, 1921, before SWAYZE, BLACK, and KATZENBACH, JJ.
Wall, Haight, Carey & Hartpence, of Jersey City, for appellant.
Gustave Haussling, of Newark, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the defendant below from a judgment entered in the district court of the second judicial district of the county of Essex. On January 31, 1921, Mrs. Emma L. Lebkeucher, the plaintiff, arrived at the Market street station of the Pennsylvania Railroad in the city of Newark from Harrisburg, Pa. Upon disembarking, a porter carried by her direction to the parcel room of the station a suit case and a hat box. These were delivered to the agent in charge of the parcel room, and Mrs. Lebkeucher received two checks and paid to the agent 10 cents for each of the parcels checked. The agent placed the duplicate checks upon the suit case and hat box. In about three-quarters of an hour Mrs. Lebkeucher returned and presented the checks to the agent. He delivered to her the hat box and informed her that he had delivered to another person by mistake the suit case for which she held the check. The railroad company failed in its efforts to recover the suit case. Mrs. Lebkeucher then instituted this action against the railroad company to recover the value of the suit case and its contents. Upon the back of the check there was printed an endorsement, reading as follows:
"The person accepting this check hereby agrees, in consideration of the low rate at which it is issued, that no claim in excess of $25.00 shall be made against the railroad company for the loss of, or injury to, any package, valise or other article which may have been deposited with it and for which this check has been issued."
In the parcel room there was posted inside at the window a notice to the effect that the railroad company would not be responsible for loss, damage, or detention of articles left in storage for any amount in excess of $25.
The opinion and findings of the trial court based upon the requests of the defendant cover fully and ably the questions presented. The court declined to find for the defendant or to limit its liability to $25 upon the theory that the terms and conditions of the check and placards were binding upon the plaintiff, and found that the defendant was guilty of negligence in failing to return the suit case to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff was not chargeable with notice of the terms and conditions printed on the checks and placards, and as a fact did not know the contents thereof and had not been apprised thereof by the agent in charge of the parcel room; that the checks and placards did not constitute a contract limiting the liability of the defendant; that the bailment was one for hire and the mutual benefit of the parties; that the bailee was bound to use ordinary care in safeguarding the plaintiff's property and as a fact it did not use ordinary care, and the defendant was liable for the value of the suit case and contents.
The findings of fact made by the trial court to the effect that the plaintiff did not know and had not been informed by the agent of the defendant of the contents of the check and placards differentiates this case from those cases where the bailor has accepted a check with full knowledge of the limitation of the bailee's liability therein expressed. In the present case, as the trial court found that there was no express contract made between the parties limiting the railroad company's liability, the only contention which can be made by the appellant to reverse the judgment is that the burden was upon the plaintiff to ascertain the terms on which the defendant accepted the bailment, and that, as the terms were printed on the checks and posted in the parcel room, these terms were binding upon the plaintiff as an implied contract and determined the extent of the defendant's liability. This is in fact the contention made by the appellant. The railroad company's insistence is that the burden was on the plaintiff to ascertain the terms on which it accepted the bailment, and not upon it to see that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sgro v. Getty Petroleum Corp., Civ. A. No. 91-2007 (MLP).
...Silvestri v. South Orange Storage Corp., 14 N.J.Super. 205, 210, 81 A.2d 502, 504-505 (App.Div.1951) (citing Lebkeucher v. Pennsylvania Railway Co., 97 N.J.L. 112, 116 A. 323, aff'd, 98 N.J.L. 271, 118 A. 926 (E. & A.1922)). In interpreting bailment contracts, as with contracts generally, a......
-
Silvers v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...a sufficient writing to satisfy the statute. See note 11, 73 S.Ct., at p. 990, 97 L.Ed., at p. 1507. Lebkeucher v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 97 N.J.L. 112, 116 A. 323 (Sup.Ct.1922), affirmed o.b. 98 N.J.L. 271, 118 A. 926 (E. & A.1922), is likewise not apposite in that there was no proof o......
-
Anstine v. McWilliams
... ... this as tending to prove value at the time of conversion ... Such evidence, however, standing alone, is not sufficient to ... support a judgment fixing a present value ... As ... stated by the supreme court of New Jersey in the case of ... Lebkeucher v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 97 N.J.L. 112, ... 116 A. 323, 324, in an action against a bailee for loss of ... property received: 'While the measure of damages was not ... the original cost but the market value of the lost articles, ... yet original cost is an element to be ... ...
-
Schwecke v. D. Leone Inc.
...also, Budd v. Van Orden, 33 N.J.Eq. 143, affirmed 33 N.J.Eq. 564; Farnsworth v. Miller, 74 N.J.L. 599, 70 A. 1100; Lebkeucher v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 97 N.J.L. 112, 116 A. 323, affirmed 98 N.J.L. 271, 118 A. 926; Precipio v. Insurance Co., 103 N.J.L. 589, 137 A. 549; O'Brien v. Broadman, 11......