Case Name: BALLSTON REFRIGERATING STORAGE CO. v. EASTERN STATES REFRIGERATING CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-01-04
Citations: 126 N.Y.S. 857
Docket Number: 
Parties: BALLSTON REFRIGERATING STORAGE CO. v. EASTERN STATES REFRIGERATING CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 126
Pages: 857–863

Head Matter:
BALLSTON REFRIGERATING STORAGE CO. v. EASTERN STATES REFRIGERATING CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
January 4, 1911.)
1. Warehousemen (§ 34 )—Actions Against Warehousemen — Burden of Proof.
Where apples were in fine condition when stored in a cold storage warehouse in October, and continued in the same condition till February, but in April were scalded, discolored, and in a damaged condition, the warehouseman is required to account for the deterioration.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Warehousemen, Cent. Dig. §§ 76, 77; Dec. Dig. § 34.*]
2. Warehousemen (§ 34*)—Actions Against Warehousemen—Findings.
Findings that when apples were received for cold storage in October they were in good condition, and when examined in February were found in sound and proper condition; that when removed the fore part of April they were scalded, discolored, and in a damaged condition; that the necessary temperature for preservation of apples is from 31 to 32 degrees Fahrenheit, uniformly maintained; that such temperature was not maintained, but defendant allowed it to rise until it reached and continued for some period at 34 to 36 degrees, and on one occasion for some period to 38 degrees; that the damaged condition was such as would be produced by a failure to maintain a uniform temperature at about the freezing point for at least 36 hours; that a uniform temperature of about the freezing point can be readily maintained in a cold storage compartment ; and that the damage to the apples was caused by the warehouseman’s negligence—are sufficient to sustain a judgment against the warehouseman for the damage to the apples.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Warehousemen, Cent. Dig. §§ 83-85; Dec. Dig. § 34. ]
Cochrane, X, and Smith, P. X, dissenting.
Appeal from judgment on Report of Referee.
Action by the Ballston Refrigerating Storage Company against the Eastern States Refrigerating Company. From a judgment on the report of a referee for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
The plaintiff, in October, 1907, stored with the defendant company, at its cold storage warehouses in Albany and in Jersey City, a quantity of apples. When" the apples were removed in the fore part of April, 1908, the plaintiff claims they were scalded, discolored, damp and in a damaged condition, and seeks to recover the damage caused thereby, alleging that the fruit was not properly stored, and that the defendant negligently allowed an improper temperature in the warehouses. The referee found in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals from the judgment entered upon the referee’s report.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, COCHRANE, SEWELL, and HOUGHTON, JJ.
Neile F. Towner, for appellant.
Frank H. Brown, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
JOHN M. KELLOGG, J.
The findings establish, upon sufficient evidence, that the apples when received in storage in October were fancy No. 1 fruit in good and sound condition, and when examined in February were in sound and proper condition; that when removed the fore part of April they were scalded, discolored, damp, and in a damaged condition, which damaged condition was produced between February and April; that the necessary temperature for the preservation of apples is from 31 to 32 degrees Fahrenheit, uniformly maintained; that such temperature was not maintained, but defendant allowed it to rise until it reached and continued for some period at 34 to 36 degrees, and on one occasion for some period to 38 degrees; that the damaged and scalded condition of the apples was such as would be produced by a failure to maintain a uniform temperature at about the freezing point for a period of at least 36 hours; that a uniform temperature of about the freezing point can readily be maintained in a cold storage compartment; and that the damage was caused by the defendant's negligence.
The defendant's evidence suggests no reason to account for the rapid decline of this fancy fruit between February and April. Its experts claim that such conditions sometimes appear in proper storage, and is usually attributed to some defective condition of the apples when stored; but the findings repel the idea that these apples were in such condition when received. Conceding the quality of the fruit in October and February to be as the referee finds it, the defendant's experts are at a loss to account for its subsequent condition with proper storage. The defendant was charged with the duty of offering some reason for the damaged condition of this fruit, and, as found by the referee, has failed to show that the injury to the apples did not happen in consequence of the failure to exercise due care. The other findings and the -evidence exclude the supposition that it could have occurred otherwise. The fine condition of the fruit when received and when examined in February, and its damaged condition in April, require the defendant to account for its rapid deterioration, and he failed to give any reason therefor. I find no evidence in the case justifying the supposition that fruit stored in a perfect condition in October, and found in satisfactory condition in February, and properly cared for, may be in the condition disclosed here in April. From the express findings of fact, it clearly appears that this damaged condition of the fruit cannot be accounted for except by the defendant's negligence. If we assume that it is necessary to have a high temperature for 36 hours, we find the excessive temperature and a condition of the fruit which can only be accounted for by continued high temperature for 36 hours. The only inference, therefore, is that the excessive temperature, found from time to time, continued for over 36 hours.
The evidence fairly sustains the findings and compels the conclusion that the plaintiff's damage was caused-solely by the defendant's negligence. The finding of defendant's negligence accompanied by the other findings, and the conclusions necessarily following from them, fairly sustain the judgment. It should therefore be affirmed, with costs. All concur, except COCHRANE, J., and SMITH, P. J., who dissent.