Medes v. Hornbach
| Decision Date | 01 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 4187.,4187. |
| Citation | 56 App. DC 13,6 F.2d 711 |
| Parties | MEDES v. HORNBACH. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
J. W. Tomlinson, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.
T. E. Lodge, of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
This was an action for damages, begun in the municipal court by the plaintiff in error as plaintiff below, upon the claim that the defendant at the time in question operated a certain garage for the storage of automobiles for pay, that plaintiff rented space of the defendant and left his automobile therein in defendant's charge, that it was then the duty of the defendant to keep plaintiff's automobile at the garage, and not permit it to go out without plaintiff's consent, but that nevertheless the defendant or his agent or servant permitted the automobile to be taken from the garage without authority from plaintiff, and that it was then injured and damaged in the sum of $630, for which and other damages plaintiff prayed judgment.
The defendant pleaded, among other things, that the automobile was taken from the garage by an employee of the defendant, acting without the scope of his employment, and without the knowledge, consent, or authority of the defendant, and in violation of his orders and instructions.
The case was tried by the trial judge sitting in the case as judge and jury. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence the defendant filed a motion for a "directed verdict," upon the ground that the plaintiff had failed to make out a case against the defendant, and had failed to prove any damage sustained by him resulting from any act or acts of the defendant. The court sustained the motion upon the ground stated therein, and rendered judgment for the defendant. The record is now before us for review.
The evidence for the plaintiff tended to prove that he was the owner of a certain automobile valued at about $600; that he rented storage space for it at the defendant's garage at an agreed monthly rental; that at defendant's request he left the key to the automobile in the car, so that it could be moved about in the garage, if necessary; that on a certain morning he went to the garage to get the car, and found that it had been taken out by one Carl Clarence Cook, the night man at the garage, without plaintiff's knowledge or consent; that later he found it down town turned over and badly damaged, that Cook was then under arrest, and the car was held by the police as evidence against him. The plaintiff also introduced evidence tending to show the extent of the damage done to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boland v. Love
...a garage owner where a garage employee took a stored car without permission and negligently drove and overturned it. Medes v. Hornbach, 1925, 56 App.D.C. 13, 6 F.2d 711, 712. There a motion for directed verdict was granted at the close of plaintiff's case. Reversing judgment for the defenda......
-
Kendall v. Gore Properties
...1951, 80 A.2d 915, 917; D.C.Mun.App., 1954, 104 A.2d 407. 8 D.C.Cir., 1930, 59 App.D.C. 370, 42 F.2d 605, 608. 9 1925, 56 App.D.C. 13, 14, 6 F.2d 711, 712. 10 Kay v. Cain, 1946, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 24, 25, 154 F.2d 305, 306. 11 Pessagno v. Euclid Inv. Co., 1940, 72 App.D.C. 141, 143, 112 F.2d 5......
-
Barclay Inc. v. Maxfield.
...Corporation v. New York Tank Barge Corporation, 314 U.S. 104, 62 S.Ct. 156, 86 L.Ed. 89; Sims v. Roy, 42 App.D.C. 496; Medes v. Hornbach, 56 App.D.C. 13, 6 F.2d 711. 5Dalton v. Hamilton Hotel Operating Co., 242 N.Y. 481, 152 N.E. 268; Thomas v. Hackney, 192 Ala. 27, 68 So. 296; Alex W. Roth......
-
Becker v. Colonial Parking, Inc.
...Mass. 20, 174 N.E. 178, 179 (1931). See also Nolan v. United States, 186 F.2d 578, 579 (4th Cir. 1951). And see Medes v. Hornbach, 56 App.D.C. 13, 14, 6 F.2d 711, 712 (1925). 12 Fielding v. S. Z. Poli Realty Co., supra note 11, 174 N.E.2d at 179. See also Nolan v. United States, supra, note......