Case Name: MOERAN v. NEW YORK POULTRY, PIGEON & PET-STOCK ASS'N, Limited
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-07-26
Citations: 59 N.Y.S. 584
Docket Number: 
Parties: MOERAN v. NEW YORK POULTRY, PIGEON & PET-STOCK ASS’N, Limited.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 59
Pages: 584–586

Head Matter:
(28 Misc. Rep. 537.)
MOERAN v. NEW YORK POULTRY, PIGEON & PET-STOCK ASS’N, Limited.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
July 26, 1899.)
Bailment—Liability of Bailee for Negligence.
Plaintiff delivered a cat to defendant for purposes of exhibition. The contract provided that the bailment should be at owner’s risk, but the defendant agreed to use reasonable care. The cat was lost by the negligence of defendant. Reid, that defendant is liable for its value.
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Seventh district.
Action by Lillian C. Moeran against the New York Poultry, Pigeon «& Pet-Stock Association, Limited. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and MacLEAN and LEVEN-TRITT, JJ.
Murphy, Lloyd & Boyd, for appellant.
E. H. Moeran, for respondent.

Opinion:
FREEDMAN, P. J.
The action was brought to recover the value of a cat delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant for exhibition, and to be returned after the lapse of a certain period of time. The defendant at the time of the delivery conducted an exhibition of pet animals at Madison Square Garden. The cat was entered under the rules of the association, which, so far as material here, provided that the entry was to be made at the owner's risk, and that all specimens would be cared for and returned at the close of the exhibition, and that the association would exercise all reasonable vigilance in the care of the exhibits, but would not be responsible for loss by fire or otherwise. There was no stipulation exempting the defendant from liability in case of negligence. The true construction of the contract between the parties, so far as material for the purpose of the present controversy, therefore, is that, though the cat was received at owner's risk, the defendant remained bound to exercise ordinary care to prevent escape. The facts disclosed by the record fully establish that the defendant did not exercise the ordinary care requisite for that purpose, but was negligent, and that the escape of the cat was due to such negligénce. Upon these facts, judgment was properly rendered, for the plaintiff in the court below.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
LEVENTBITT, J., concurs.