Case Name: Eugenie Ruffin, Appellant, v. Salvatore Ruggiero, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-01
Citations: 10 Misc. 739
Docket Number: 
Parties: Eugenie Ruffin, Appellant, v. Salvatore Ruggiero, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 739–740

Head Matter:
Eugenie Ruffin, Appellant, v. Salvatore Ruggiero, Respondent.
(New York Common Pleas
Additional General Term,
January, 1895.)
Where the door of an office at which goods are directed to be delivered is locked, with a notice thereon that articles for the occupant should be delivered to the janitress, a delivery of, the goods at the door, with a statement to the janitress that they are for such occupant, is sufficient to relieve the carrier'of liability.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court in the city" of New York for the eighth judicial district.
Robert A. B. Dayton, for appellant.
•Morris Putnam St&vrns, for respondent.

Opinion:
Bookstaver, J*.
This action is brought to recover damages from an expressman for failure to deliver a sewing machine. Plaintiff sent the machine to one Balliard, who was to receive it as her agent, at his office address, No. 1300 Broadway. Balliard gave the hill of lading to defendant's driver. Defendant brought the machine to 1300 Broadway, carried it up to the door of Balliard's office and found the door locked. On the door was a notice directing that articles for Balliard should be delivered to the janitress. It 'appears that defendant went up to Balliard's office and then returned and carried the machine up-stairs. On his way back with the machine he met the janitress who asked, " What have you got ? " to which he answered, " A machine box for Mr. Balliard." She then asked if that was all he had, and he replied, "Yes," and went away. The machine was subsequently stolen by parties unknown. We think the defendant delivered the machine in accordance with the directions given him, and his liability thereupon ceased. There was only a-question of fact to be determined. ' The justice decided in favor of defendant and we think the evidence fully sustains his finding. No error of law affecting the verdict was argued.
The judgment is, therefore, affirmed, with costs.
Bischoff, J., concurs.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.