Halyard v. Dechelman

lJ A watchmaker who receives a watch to repair is hound to use ordinary 1 diligence in its safe-keeping; if the watch while in his custody be stolen J through his negligence he will be liable.} A demand for the watch by the bailor would not in such case be necessary to entitle him to sue.

Appeal from Weston Court of Common Pleas. This was an action to recover damages for the loss of a watch alleged to have been left with, the defendant, a watchmaker and jeweller, for repairs. Plaintiff alleged that the watch, through the carelessness and negligence of the defendant, was lost, destroyed or stolen. The defendant in answer put in issue the ownership of the watch; admitted he had received a watch for repairs. from a son of plaintiff, and alleges that his store was burglariously entered and the watch stolen, with a number of others belonging to defendant, and without negligence on his part. Evidence was adduced showing the manner in which the watches were kept and the facts connected with the entry of the store and the stealing of the watch of plaintiff. The court,’ among other instructions, gave the following : “ 1. The plaintiff is not entitled to recover without averring and proving a demand and a tender of the amount of repairs.” Plaintiff took a nonsuit, with leave, &c. I. No demand was necessary. (Ross v. Clark, 27 Mo. 550.) There is no issue in the pleadings as to the repairs. The defendant neither alleges nor proves that he had made any repairs.