Case Name: Bertha Kaufman, Respondent, v. D. Percy Morgan, Impleaded, Appellant
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-10
Citations: 10 Misc. 54
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bertha Kaufman, Respondent, v. D. Percy Morgan, Impleaded, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 54–55

Head Matter:
Bertha Kaufman, Respondent, v. D. Percy Morgan, Impleaded, Appellant.
(City Court of New York
General Term,
October, 1894.)
The liability of one to whom a warehouse company has surrendered possession of its warehouse and the goods therein for injury to such goods is several and not joint with that of the original bailee.
In an action for injury to the goods, the fact that the defendant’s possession was in an official capacity is no defense, where the bailor had no knowledge or notice of such representative character.
Appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Morgan.
The facts appear in the preceding case of Ka/wfman v. Peoples Gold Storage (& Warehouse Go.
Pcursons, Shepard <& Ogden, for appellant.
L. J. Morrison, for respondent.

Opinion:
Ehrlich, Ch. J.
There was evidence in the case to show that the defendant Morgan at the time of the injury to the goods was in possession and control of the warehouse. He attempted to defend upon the ground that his possession was in an official capacity; but the plaintiff denies that she had any knowledge or notice of any such representative character.
The questions were fairly submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $325.
The facts proved warranted a verdict against Morgan individually, for his liability was several, and not joint with that of his co-defendant.
The trial judge might and perhaps ought to have sent the jury back for the purpose of passing on the liability of the warehouse company, that the issue as to it might have been disposed of. But this is matter of which the appellant Morgan cannot complain.
As we find no force in the exceptions, and no error requir ing a new trial, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.
Uewbubgeb and Fitzsimohs, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.