Viewing page 40 of 86

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-2-

plaintiff as compensation *** for the destruction of said paintings," and moves for summary judgment on the pleadings, on the ground that no issue of fact is presented and that the question of law must be resolved in her favor. Defendant admits receiving the sum of $7,195.00 from the insurance company but denies that such sum represented the value of plaintiff's paintings, setting up in defense a claim that part of the proceeds was paid on account of defendant's insurable interest as consignee of the subject paintings. 

Defendant does not dispute the plaintiff's statement of the law that when property in the hands of a gratuitous bailee is destroyed, the proceeds of the insurance belong to the bailor, but stoutly maintains there is an issue of fact as to the valuation of the paintings which were destroyed, or at least an issue as to the amount received by the defendant from the insurance company as the value of those paintings. Though the Court is inclined to the belief that perhaps this contention of the defendant is predicated less upon fact than upon fancy, it does not appear that the facts upon which this action is founded are so patent as to warrant the denial to defendant of its day in court. 

However, the court in which the defendant may make its case must be the court in which venue was originally laid. The defendant has named but one witness, not an employee, whose convenience should be granted any serious consideration. Furthermore, the defendant has presented an issue of fact which is, at best, a narrow question, the proof of which will not require any great number of witnesses, at least not those alleged by the defendant to be material. 

On the other hand, there is the consideration of a speedy trial which, though obviously beneficial to both parties, will relieve the plaintiff from the gross injustice to which she would be subjected by the delays inherent in the congested state of the