Stallman v. Kimberly
| Decision Date | 03 June 1890 |
| Citation | 121 N.Y. 393,24 N.E. 939 |
| Parties | STALLMAN et al. v. KIMBERLY et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, general term, first department.
WAREHOUSEMEN-LIEN.
Laws N. Y. 1885, c. 526, provides that a warehouseman shall have a lien for his storage charges for moneys advanced by him to pay for cartage, etc., on goods stored with him, and such lien shall include all legal demands for storage which he may have against the owner of the goods. Held, that the lien for storage charges is not confined to the particular goods upon which the charges arose, but he has a general lien upon any goods in his possession for a balance due on the general account of the owner. Affirming 6 N. Y. Supp. 706.
Preston Stevenson, for appellants.
Chas. Stewart Davison, for respondents.
The nature and extent of the defendants' lien as warehousemen, exclusively engaged in that business in the city of New York, is the only question involved in this appeal. The plaintiffs are merchants, and in the transaction of their business deposited or stored with the defendants, as warehousemen, on five different occasions, in the year 1887, five distinct parcels of merchandise which belonged to the plaintiffs. Prior to February, 1888, the plaintiffs had withdrawn from the defendants' warehouse certain portions of these goods without paying the lawful charges due to the defendants thereon as warehousemen, and on that day there was due to the defendants for such charges, upon the five parcels above mentioned, the sum of $88.02. The plaintiffs had also on various other occasions stored and deposited with the defendants, in the same way and for the same purpose, other goods, and had also with drawn portions of them without paying the charges thereon, which amounted to the sum of $171.46. Prior to the commencement of this action the plaintiffs tendered to the defendants the sum of $88.02, and demanded the portion of the five parcels of the goods first mentioned not with drawn; but the defendants refused to deliver the same unless the plaintiffs would also pay the balance of defendants' general account against them for storing other goods, namely, the said sum of $171.46. This the plaintiffs declined to do, and brought this action to recover the specific articles of merchandise of the five parcels remaining in the defendants' possession. The defendants claim that they had a general lien, as warehousemen, on these goods, not only for the charges against them, but also for all other charges due generally from the plaintiffs to the defendants as warehousemen. The trial court directed a verdict in plaintiffs' favor for the recovery of the possession of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moline, Milburn & Stoddard Co. v. Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping Machine Co.
... ... [Eng.] ... 109; Moet v. Pickering, 8 Ch. Div. [Eng.] 372; ... Lowe v. Martin, 18 Ill. 286; Deveren v ... Fleming, 53 F. 401; Stallman v. Kimberly, 121 ... N.Y. 393; Schmidt v. Blood, 9 Wend. [N.Y.] 267; ... Steinman v. Wilkins, 7 W. & S. [Pa.] 466; Morgan v ... Congdon, 4 ... ...
-
Harbor View Marine Corp. v. Braudy
...account. Lummus on Liens § 80 (1904); see discussion in Stallman v. Kimberly, 1889, 53 Hun 531, 6 N.Y.S. 706, affirmed 1890, 121 N.Y. 393, 24 N.E. 939. In a few states, prior to the drafting of the Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act, the warehouseman's lien had by statute been extended to cover......
-
In re Taub
...in many states extended by statute, so as to give a general rather than a specific lien. This was done in New York. Stallman v. Kimberly, 121 N. Y. 393, 24 N. E. 939. And it was done in New Jersey. There is no doubt that the New Jersey Uniform Warehouse Receipts Law gives a general rather t......
- Heartt v. Kruger