Levine v. D. Wolff & Co.

• Decision Date: 07 June 1909
• Citation: 73 A. 73,78 N.J.L. 306
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: LEVINE v. D. WOLFF & CO.

73 A. 73

78 N.J.L. 306

LEVINE

v. D. WOLFF & CO.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 7, 1909.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

2. Words and Phrases—quot;Pulled Goods."

Pulled goods are chattels sold upon condition and retaken by the vendor for noncompliance with the conditions of sale.

Appeal from District Court of City of Newark.

Action by Julius J. Levine against D. Wolff & Co. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued February term, 1909, before REED, TRENCHARD, and MINTURN, JJ.

Riker & Riker, for appellant.

Philip J. Schotland, for appellee.

MINTURN, J. The result of the trial of this action before the district court was that the court found as facts that the plaintiff contracted with defendant company "to store" his household goods for a monthly consideration, to be paid to the defendant; and that in pursuance of this contract the defendant company carried the goods upon their truck to the defendant's stable, where the wagon was taken in and allowed to stand with the goods loaded thereon for two days and nights; and while thus situated a fire occurred in the stable upon the second night, and the goods were thereby destroyed. The building was used not only as a stable, and a place for keeping defendant's wagons, but also as a place to keep what is called "pulled goods," viz., chattels sold by defendant upon conditional sales, and retaken by the vendor for noncompliance with the conditions of sale. These "pulled goods" were stored in wooden compartments in the stable; some were injured by the fire, and some damaged by water, but none was destroyed, and all were subsequently sold as secondhand goods. The court found the value of plaintiff's goods to be $300, and rendered judgment in his favor for that amount. The case presents a question resolvable under the law of bailment; and the liability of the defendant thereon is to be determined by the conclusion reached upon the facts, as to whether, as bailee, he performed the duty imposed upon him by law as a warehouseman. At common law, since Coggs v. Bernard, this duty was defined to be to take reasonable care of the goods intrusted to his charge. Story on Bailments, 444; Insurance Co. v. Kiger, 103 U. S. 352, 26 L. Ed. 433. Section 21 of chapter 133 of the Laws of 1907, entitled "An Act Concerning Warehouse Receipts and to Make Uniform the Law Relating Thereto," makes no change in this respect in the common-law doctrines, and is merely declaratory thereof. Act May 7, 1907 (P. L. p. 347). It has been held that within the purview of this duty is the requirement to use reasonable care; to provide a building reasonably fit and safe for storage. Moulton v. Phillips, 10 R. I. 218, 14 Am. Rep. 663; Hickey v. Morrell, 102 N. Y. 454, 7 N. E. 321, 55 Am. Rep. 824; Walden v. Pinch, 70 Pa. 400.

It is to be noted also that the reasonable care contracted for was that ordinarily exercised by a warehouseman "to store" the plaintiff's goods; and it has been held that this duty imposed upon the warehouseman such care and diligence as good and capable warehousemen are accustomed to show under similar circumstances. Lancaster Mills v. Merchants'...