Case Name: Rachel Chatzkelson, Resp't, v. The State of California Steamship Company, Limited, App'lt
Court: New York City Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-02-08
Citations: 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 33
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rachel Chatzkelson, Resp’t, v. The State of California Steamship Company, Limited, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 58
Pages: 33–33

Head Matter:
Rachel Chatzkelson, Resp’t, v. The State of California Steamship Company, Limited, App’lt.
(New York City Court, General Term,
Filed, February 8, 1894.)
Appeal—Dismissal of complaint.
In an action against a steamship company for loss of baggage, dismissal of the complaint is error, where the fact that the seller of the ticket was the agent of, or that his act was ratified by, the defendant, or that the ship was owned or operated by him, was not established by sufficient evidence.
Appeal Lom judgment in favor of plaintiff.
Seward, Guthrie & Morawetz for app’lt; Mashbir & Cukor for resp’t.

Opinion:
Fitzsimons, J.
The plaintiff claimed that she took passage from Hamburg to New York by means of transit furnished by defendant, and that she purchased the passage ticket from one Mendel whom she said was the defendant's agent in Hamburg, and that her baggage was lost by defendants. The jury rendered a verdict in her favor for three hundred dollars ($300.00). The defendant moved at the close of the case to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant made any contract with her for passage from Hamburg, which motion was denied. In denying the motion to dismiss the complaint upon the ground just stated the learned trial justice erred because there is no testimony in the case (except the mere say so of plaintiff's child who was at the time of the taking of said passage only eleven years of age) which establishes that Mendel was the agent of the defendant in Hamburg or that he acted for it, in any capacity or that any of his acts were ratified by defendant. Nor is there any testimony proving that any ship, railroad or other means of transit used by the plaintiff on her passage from Hamburg to New York, was owned or controlled or managed or operated by defendant. Under these circumstances no cause of action was established against the defendant. And the complaint should have been dismissed. Judgment is reversed, a new trial ordered with costs to appellant to abide the event of action.
All concur.