From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Freiberger v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 17, 1932
143 Misc. 164 (N.Y. App. Term 1932)

Opinion

March 17, 1932.

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eighth District.

William J. McArthur [Maury M. Kotz of counsel], for the appellant.

Henry J. Harkavy, for the respondent.


The word "transport" means to carry or convey from one place to another. (Funk Wagnalls' New Standard Dict.) The title of clause 3 of the defendant's bond, viz., " Messenger Robbery Coverage" (italics ours) indicates that the word "transport" was used in the bond in that sense. In our opinion the assured was not transporting the money from his premises merely because it was in his possession at the time he left his place of business and went to the barber shop, in the absence of evidence that he was taking the money from his place of business with the intention of leaving it at some specific place.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for defendant, with costs.

All concur; present, LYDON, FRANKENTHALER and UNTERMYER, JJ.


Summaries of

Freiberger v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 17, 1932
143 Misc. 164 (N.Y. App. Term 1932)
Case details for

Freiberger v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.

Case Details

Full title:EMIL FREIBERGER, Respondent, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Mar 17, 1932

Citations

143 Misc. 164 (N.Y. App. Term 1932)
255 N.Y.S. 710

Citing Cases

O.K. Express Corp. v. Maryland Cas. Co.

In the absence of proof that Salmonsohn was taking the money from the plaintiff's office to some other…