McBride v. De Cozen Motor Co.
| Decision Date | 21 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 417.,417. |
| Citation | 137 A. 558 |
| Parties | McBRIDE v. DE COZEN MOTOR CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court of Newark.
Action by Elsie M. McBride against the De Cozen Motor Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued January term, 1927, before KALISCH, KATZENBACH, and LLOYD, JJ.
John A. Bernhard, of Newark, for respondent.
Joseph C. Paul, of Newark, for appellant.
Judgment was rendered for the defendant by the judge of the Second district court of Newark sitting without a jury, and from that judgment the plaintiff appeals.
From the state of the case agreed upon it appears that the plaintiff, Elsie M. McBride, owned an automobile which on May 27, 1925, she placed in the defendant's shop to be washed and adjusted. On the 30th of May at 7 o'clock in the evening the defendant's watchman returned and found the rear door opened and the plaintiff's car gone. This constituted the whole of the plaintiff's case.
The defendant proved that on the morning of May 30th at 7 o'clock all the doors and windows were locked; that no employees were working on that day and no business was transacted; that on the return of the defendant's watchman at 5 o'clock he found the back door open and the plaintiff's car missing; that he examined the doors and windows and found no evidence of a forced entry; that all the bolts and locks were in good condition; that the office manager checked the cars in the garage on the night of May 29th and again on the night of the 30th, and that the only car missing was that of the plaintiff; that about a year and a half before the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a bookkeeper.
The plaintiff then called one Kirby, who testified that he went to the garage the third day after the theft, and there was no evidenced of a forced entry.
The judgment should be affirmed. The transaction constituted a bailment for mutual advantage, and the failure of the defendant to return the car made a prima facie case from which the trial judge could infer negligence. Kittay v. Cordasco (N. J. Err. & App.) 134 A. 007. He was, however, not obliged to so find. Hughes v. Atlantic City Railroad Co., 85 N. J. Law, 212, 89 A. 769, L. R. A. 1916A, 927. The question presented was one of fact, and from the conclusion of the trial judge no appeal will lie.
The judgment will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore's Trucking Co. v. Gulf Tire & Supply Co.
...sale, Kittay v. Cordasco, 103 N.J.L. 156, 134 A. 667 (E. & A.1926); automobile placed in shop to be washed, McBride v. DeCozen Motor Co., 137 A. 558, 5 N.J.Misc. 552 (Sup.Ct.1927); airplane stored in a hangar, Hopper's, Inc., v. Red Bank Airport, Inc., 15 N.J.Super. 349, 83 A.2d 457 (App.Di......
-
McFarland v. C. A. R. Corp., A--739
...who has actual control over access to the structure, is held to have primary control over the vehicle. McBride v. De Cozen Motor Co., 5 N.J.Misc. 552, 137 A. 558 (Sup.Ct.1927); N.J.Mfrs.' Ass'n Fire Ins. Co. v. Galowitz, 106 N.J.L. 493, 150 A. 408 (E. & A.1930); Moore's Trucking Co. v. Gulf......
-
Kushner v. President of Atlantic City, Inc.
...58 N.J.Super. 375, 156 A.2d 267 (App.Div.1959); Rauber v. Zinner, 125 N.J.L. 85, 13 A.2d 488 (Sup.Ct.1940); McBride v. DeCozen Motor Co., 5 N.J.Misc. 552, 137 A. 558 (Sup.Ct.1927); 7 A.L.R.3d 934. Upon showing delivery by a bailor and damage to or failure to return the automobile while in t......