Appeals — Review — Granting new trial — Court below — Discretion — Bailor and bailee — Bailment for hire — Property of unusual value — Jewelry — Ignorance of bailee.
In this action of trespass in which it appeared that the plaintiff, who was not a guest in the hotel, left a sample case containing jewelry in the hotel check room and never received it back; that the defendants were the concessionaire who operated the check room, the corporation which owned the hotel and the corporation which operated the hotel; and it further appeared that the case was tried entirely on the theory of negligence by the bailee and contributory negligence by the bailor, the contributory negligence being failure to advise the check room attendant that the case contained $7000 in jewelry; and the court below granted a new trial upon the ground that it was fundamental error for the judge not to set forth in his charge the scope of the duties imposed on an operator of a check room with respect to property of unusual value bailed to him; it was Held that the order granting a new trial was not an abuse of discretion.
OPINION PER CURIAM, November 11, 1957:
The order of the Court below is affirmed on the able and comprehensive opinion of Judge MONTGOMERY, reported in 9 Pa. D. C.2d 677.