From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Buttman v. Dennett

New York Common Pleas — Additional General Term
Aug 1, 1894
9 Misc. 462 (N.Y. Misc. 1894)

Summary

In Buttman v. Dennett, 9 Misc. Rep. 462, it was held that a restaurant keeper in whose custody wraps and other articles of wearing apparel have been temporarily placed for safekeeping is liable as a bailee.

Summary of this case from Montgomery v. Ladjing

Opinion

August, 1894.

W.S. Burt, for appellant.

L.S. Wheeler, for respondent.


We think that a restaurant keeper in whose custody wraps and other articles of wearing apparel have been temporarily placed for safe-keeping is liable as a bailee under the rule laid down in Bunnell v. Stern, 122 N.Y. 539, and Bird v. Everard, 4 Misc. 104; 53 N.Y. St. Repr. 210, and that the judgment must, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Present: BOOKSTAVER and BISCHOFF, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Buttman v. Dennett

New York Common Pleas — Additional General Term
Aug 1, 1894
9 Misc. 462 (N.Y. Misc. 1894)

In Buttman v. Dennett, 9 Misc. Rep. 462, it was held that a restaurant keeper in whose custody wraps and other articles of wearing apparel have been temporarily placed for safekeeping is liable as a bailee.

Summary of this case from Montgomery v. Ladjing
Case details for

Buttman v. Dennett

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM BUTTMAN, Respondent, v . ALFRED W. DENNETT, Appellant

Court:New York Common Pleas — Additional General Term

Date published: Aug 1, 1894

Citations

9 Misc. 462 (N.Y. Misc. 1894)

Citing Cases

Wentworth v. Riggs

I am not prepared to say that any clear rule of universal application can be found in the cases. See Buttman…

Simpson v. Rourke

A restaurant keeper is not an insurer of the effects of customers who may have accepted the invitation held…