Case Name: Lee T. Alton, Appellant, v. The New York Taxicab Company, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-02
Citations: 66 Misc. 191
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lee T. Alton, Appellant, v. The New York Taxicab Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 191–192

Head Matter:
Lee T. Alton, Appellant, v. The New York Taxicab Company, Respondent.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
February, 1910.)
Warehousing — Lien for charges — Storage by one not a warehouseman.
A casual bailee who is not a warehouseman or one lawfully engaged in the business of storing goods for profit has no lien for storage charges on goods stored with him; and the owner may maintain an action against him for conversion upon liis refusal to deliver the goods until the charge for storage is paid.
Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, fifth district, borough of Manhattan, dismissing the complaint without prejudice to a new action.
Thomas & Oppenheimer, for appellant.
Lewis D. Mooney, for respondent.

Opinion:
Bijur, J.
The action is one for conversion of a lathe originally stored with the defendant for mutual benefit. After defendant notified plaintiff to remove it, the latter delayed for about four months, after which his demand for the return of the lathe was refused, unless he paid a reasonable storage charge therefor. ISTo lien, however, inures upon stored goods in favor of a casual bailee, either by commercial usage or the laws of this State. By Laws of 1907, chapter 732, section 27 (now section 112 of the General Business Law), the right to a lien is limited to a warehouseman, defined as " a person lawfully engaged in the business of storing goods for profit." General Business Law, § 142.
The history and rationale of this lien may be found in Trust v. Pirsson, 1 Hilt. 292, 297; Eivara v. Ghio, 3 E. D. Smith, 263, 267; cited with approval in Merritt v. Peirano, 10 App. Div. 563, 565; Lyungstrandh v. Haaker Co., 16 Mise. Eep. 387. See also Eobinson v. Kaplan, 21 Mise. Eep. 686, 689.
Upon the record of this case, it would seem that plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of conversion, since defendant, while entitled to recover a reasonable charge for storage, had no right to refuse to return the lathe until that charge was paid.
Seabuey and Lehman, TJ., concur.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.