Court Opinion

ID: 9582475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:27:16.791733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:50.166790
License: Public Domain

SCHAUER, J., Dissenting.
I concur in the conclusion reached by Mr. Justice Carter. On the record, for the purposes of this appeal, it must be deemed admitted that defendant, as a bailee for hire, received from plaintiff’s assignor (hereinafter called plaintiff) an envelope containing $5,500, and that subsequently plaintiff demanded and defendant refused to return the subject of the bailment. Furthermore, a receipt in writing prepared by defendant was given to plaintiff. Under these circumstances the burden devolved upon the defendant bailee to return the bailed property or to exculpate itself for its failure so to do (see George v. Bekins Van & Storage Co. (1949), 33 Cal.2d 834, 840-841 [205 P.2d 1037]; Downey v. Martin Aircraft Service (1950), 96 Cal.App.2d 94, 99 [214 P.2d 581]; U Drive & Tour, Ltd. v. System Auto. Parks, Ltd. (1937), 28 Cal.App.2d Supp. 782, 784 [71 P.2d 354]) and a summary judgment on defendant’s motion limiting its liability to $250 was improper.