CAHILL v. PHELPS

Contract, What constitutes. Evidence, Relevancy and materiality.

At the trial of an action of contract to recover for storing furniture of the defendant from April, 1903, to September, 1906, it appeared that, previous to April, 1903, the premises where the furniture was stored had been occupied by the plaintiff's father and that the furniture was stored there under an arrangement between him and the defendant's father; that in April, 1903, the plaintiff's and the defendant's fathers both having died, the plaintiff ceased to occupy the premises and had an interview with the defendant in which he asked the defendant to remove the furniture, and told him he would charge him a certain amount for storage as long as it remained where it was. The defendant said he would remove the furniture and would pay for its storage until removed; but he did not remove it, and, in September, 1906, the plaintiff caused it to be removed. The plaintiff at no time had any title to the premises where the furniture was stored, but had a key to them and frequently went there and examined the furniture, and the owner permitted him to leave the furniture there. It appeared that the plaintiff repeatedly had sent bills for the storage to the defendant, who never had denied that he owed the plaintiff for the storage until the bringing of the action. Held, that there was evidence from which the jury were warranted in finding that the plaintiff had such a right to possession of the premises that he could give the defendant the right to store the furniture there, and that the defendant had promised to pay for the storage.

At the trial of an action of contract to recover from the defendant the expense to the plaintiff of removing to a storage warehouse furniture of the defendant which the plaintiff had been storing for him under an agreement, it appeared that the defendant had not paid for such storage according to the agreement, and that the premises where the furniture was stored had been sold to one who demanded of the plaintiff that the furniture be removed. The plaintiff offered in evidence two letters written by him to the defendant demanding that he pay the storage charges and remove the furniture at once, and stating that, unless the demand was complied with, the plaintiff would remove the furniture and store it at the defendant's expense. The presiding judge admitted the letters and the defendant excepted. Held, that the letters were admissible as tending to show knowledge on the part of the defendant of the circumstances under which the furniture was removed and as thereby rendering the defendant liable for the expense of removal.

MORTON, J.

There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff had such possession of the premises where the goods were stored that she could and did give the defendant the right to store the goods there, and that the defendant promised to pay her for such storage. The weight of the evidence was for the jury. There being evidence which, if believed, warranted a verdict for the plaintiff, the court properly refused to direct a verdict for the defendant as requested by her.

The letters were rightly admitted as tending to show knowledge on the defendant's part of the circumstances under which the goods were removed by the plaintiff to the storage warehouse, and as thereby tending to show a liability on her part for the expense of removal.

Exceptions overruled.