From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stern v. American Railway Express Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Nov 1, 1923
120 Misc. 110 (N.Y. App. Term 1923)

Opinion

November Term — Filed January, 1923.

Edward V. Conwell ( Charles C. Evans, of counsel), for appellant.

Bondy Schloss ( Eugene L. Bondy and F. Sidney Williams, of counsel), for respondent.


The trial court having correctly held that as matter of law plaintiff had not complied with the provisions of defendant's uniform express receipt in respect to giving defendant notice after a reasonable time for the delivery of the goods had elapsed, as the defendant could not waive the provision of the contract requiring such notice ( Georgia, Fla. Ala. Ry. v. Blish Co., 241 U.S. 190), the complaint should have been dismissed.

We cannot find that the record presented this point for adjudication by the Court of Appeals in Cheney Piano Action Co. v. New York C. H.R.R.R. Co., 222 N.Y. 557, which in our opinion explains the apparent inconsistency between the federal and the state decision.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

All concur; present, GUY, BIJUR and DELEHANTY, JJ.

Judgment reversed.


Summaries of

Stern v. American Railway Express Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Nov 1, 1923
120 Misc. 110 (N.Y. App. Term 1923)
Case details for

Stern v. American Railway Express Co.

Case Details

Full title:FRED STERN, Trading as FRED STERN COMPANY, Respondent, v . AMERICAN…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Nov 1, 1923

Citations

120 Misc. 110 (N.Y. App. Term 1923)
198 N.Y.S. 531

Citing Cases

Chicago, St. P., M. O. R. Co. v. Kileen

Undoubtedly, it is the general rule that as to all shipments under a uniform bill of lading written notice of…