
    Reynolds v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co.
    
      (Supreme Cov/rt, General Term, Second Department.
    
    December 13,1888.)
    Carriers of Goods—Misdelivery—Ratification.
    In an action by a married woman against a railway company for the value of certain furniture delivered to defendant for carriage, it appeared that plaintiff’s husband delivered the goods and' took the receipt, which he gave to plaintiff. When-the goods reached their destination they were delivered to a car-man, who produced the receipt, it having been given him by plaintiff’s husband. The goods were taken to a sales-room, and exposed for sale, where plaintiff saw them, and made no objection. The goods were sold, and plaintiff’s husband got the money. He had sold other goods through the same salesman by plaintiff’s authority, and on one occasion, in the presence of her husband, she asked for the proceeds of the sale. Plaintiff testified that, she did not give the receipt to her husband, and that she thought the sales-room was a railway store-house. Held, the complaint should be dismissed, there not being sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict for plaintiff.
    Appeal from circuit court, Kings county.
    Action by Kate 0. Reynolds against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company for the value of certain furniture delivered to defendant for carriage. The trial court dismissed the complaint on motion of defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
    Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.
    
      G. S. Noyes, for appellant. F. Loomis, for respondent.
   Barnard, P. J.

The court was called upon to dismiss the complaint upon the plaintiff’s own showing. Such a course is justified when, upon the evidence, a verdict upon it in favor of the plaintiff would be set aside. The plaintiff was the wife of one Reynolds. The husband packed up certain articles of furniture belonging to the plaintiff, and delivered them to the defendant to be carried to Peekskill. Reynolds left the receipt for the property with the plaintiff. Subsequently a car-man presented the receipt for the property, and took it to the sales-room of Mr. Lent, in Peekskill. The plaintiff subsequently saw it there exposed for sale, and made no objection. Reynolds delivered the receipt to the car-man. Reynolds got the money on the sale. He had admittedly sold other things for his wife, and got the money by her authority, through the same seller of furniture—of Mr. Lent. As against this testimony there is only the evidence of the plaintiff ’that she did not give the' receipt to her husband, and that she supposed Lent’s store was a railroad store-house. On one occasion she asked for the proceeds of some of the sales-in company with her husband. A verdict fdr the plaintiff ought not to stand upon the testimony upon the part of the plaintiff, and the judgment should1 therefore be affirmed, with costs. All concur.  