From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mallison Co. v. Barrett

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 8, 1925
124 Misc. 359 (N.Y. App. Term 1925)

Opinion

January 8, 1925.

Stockton Stockton [ George M. Billings of counsel], for the appellant.

Theodore L. Bailey [ G.E. Smith of counsel], for the respondent.


The Second Cummins Amendment (39 U.S. Stat. at Large, 441, 442, chap. 301), referred to in points of counsel, did not affect the right of a carrier to have a partial loss prorated in accordance with the terms of its contract with the shipper limiting its liability upon the basis of the declared value of the property.

However, in this case there was no stated ratio, the value being stated in a lump sum. We are of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full value of the lost property. ( Candee v. D., L. W.R.R. Co., 94 N.J.L. 144; 109 A. 202; petition for writ of certiorari denied, 253 U.S. 490.)

Judgment affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs.

All concur; present, GUY, O'MALLEY and LEVY, JJ.


Summaries of

Mallison Co. v. Barrett

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 8, 1925
124 Misc. 359 (N.Y. App. Term 1925)
Case details for

Mallison Co. v. Barrett

Case Details

Full title:H.R. MALLISON CO., Respondent, v . WILLIAM M. BARRETT, as President of the…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jan 8, 1925

Citations

124 Misc. 359 (N.Y. App. Term 1925)
207 N.Y.S. 794

Citing Cases

Mallison Co., Inc., v. Barrett

Referring to a quotation in the brief for appellant from a memorandum handed down in one of these cases at…