Cowen v. Pressprich case
brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
192 N.Y.S. 242
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendant recipient
challenged the judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New
York, Borough of Manhattan, First District (New York), that held it
liable in plaintiff deliverer's action for conversion of a
misdelivered bond.
FACTS: The recipient ordered a securities bond from the deliverer, who ordered it from a third party. The third party shipped the wrong bond, and the deliverer's messenger gave it to the recipient. Shortly after delivery, the recipient realized the mistake and returned the bond to the purported messenger, who was an imposter. The deliverer brought an action for conversion against the recipient and prevailed in the lower court. The court affirmed.
FACTS: The recipient ordered a securities bond from the deliverer, who ordered it from a third party. The third party shipped the wrong bond, and the deliverer's messenger gave it to the recipient. Shortly after delivery, the recipient realized the mistake and returned the bond to the purported messenger, who was an imposter. The deliverer brought an action for conversion against the recipient and prevailed in the lower court. The court affirmed.
HOLDING:
The court held that an involuntary bailee that exercised dominion over an item owed the same duty of care as a voluntary bailee, to deliver the bailed article to the right person.
ANALYSIS:
The delivery of an item in mistake for one that was ordered, the fact that the recipient could not see the messenger when the bond was delivered, and the relative ease with which the recipient could have called the deliverer or had its own messenger return the bond to the deliverer itself, gave rise to a duty on the part of the recipient to deliver the bond to its proper owner.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of the deliverer in its conversion action against the recipient.
The court held that an involuntary bailee that exercised dominion over an item owed the same duty of care as a voluntary bailee, to deliver the bailed article to the right person.
ANALYSIS:
The delivery of an item in mistake for one that was ordered, the fact that the recipient could not see the messenger when the bond was delivered, and the relative ease with which the recipient could have called the deliverer or had its own messenger return the bond to the deliverer itself, gave rise to a duty on the part of the recipient to deliver the bond to its proper owner.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of the deliverer in its conversion action against the recipient.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment