*1 Wilkins Earle. of case. Statement William T. Wilkins, v. William Earle Appellant, P.
William H. Earle, Respondents. Innkeepers are'still safety insurers of the property guests, of the of their notwithstanding (chap. 421, p. the act of 18S5 774); only effect of being statute modify to so far liability their common law that it jewels does money, extend to deposited safe, ornaments not in the provided purpose, for that innkeeper complied where the has with provisions part. of the act on his amount Of liability is not limited to such an money may be reason- ably necessary traveling expenses for the guest, of the hut covers what- may deposited ever amount be received and in the safe. plaintiff, being guest at inn, package, defendants’ delivered $20,000, containing young to a charge office, man in deposited of the to be in the safe. It envelope, was inclosed in a sealed and the name of the guest pencil outside; was written on the but no indorsement indi- cated its posted contents or value. The notices in the rooms of the inn required packages deposited that valuable so should be “properly labelled.” The envelope asked contained, what replied “money.” placed safe, was received and was sub- sequently therefrom.—Seld, stolen that the defendants were liable to the deposited. fall moneys amount of the so “ ” uno, The maxim aims in omnibus falsehood, relates to willful fakus f “ plaintiff’s and a charge refusal to if the relation of material facts is important particulars, contradicted in one or more about which he can- simply mistaken, be deemed credit,” is not evidence entitled to not error. In such a case the are authorized to discredit the wit- ; not, law, ness but are required as a matter of to do so. given tending possession evidence has been Where to raise doubts as to the property alleged of the lost, him to have been it is no error to receive property possession evidence that similar in his shortly before possession the time of such loss. may Continuance fairly presumed.
(Argued September 27; decided 29, 1870.) December Appeal from a of the judgment Court Superior city New York, the' verdict of a jury, special findings fact, taken exceptions heard at the General trial, . Term, the first instance. became the defendants, at their
hotel in of New on the of the 20th city York, evening v. Earle. *2 of
Statement case. 1863. Soon after his arrival April, he delivered to the servant of the defendants, who had apparently charge at the office, sealed envelope containing §20,000, the the servant plaintiff in requested safe kept the at defendants the office for the safe of keeping and valuables to their money, jewels belonging guests. was the which was then
package placed safe, the locked A plaintiff’s notice was presence. posted room assigned that value should be packages properly labeled and in an iron safe deposited the office for kept “ A of the act, entitled an purpose. copy act to regulate the of hotel liability was also keepers,” passed 1855, posted in the room. the servant, receiving what it package, inquired and
contained, the answered plaintiff “money.” bio'further information as to the contents was asked or On the given. when the called for his following morning, plaintiff package, him. it be has found, could not and never been returned to who was within the servant, officethe previous even- rose before the and obtained defendants, ing, one of the and them the was seen to safe, out key open take some defendants afterward it. The property lock had handed him the defendant, who came office key, afterward, but the servant had then soon very absconded; and, search was made him for detec- although diligent he not for has since been seen tives, purpose, employed nor have obtained information whither parties, found. he has where can be gone the counsel for the evidence, At the close defendants on the moved to dismiss complaint grounds, following viz.: not but rather That statute enlarge,
1st. did limited, 2d. That were not liable innkeepers innkeepers, liability had but no for where guest baggage, only money only, such amount of guest, necessary baggage him, as to have with reasonable having regard was for his necessary nature extent journey, v. Eaele. of case.
Statement sum to he lost alleged reasonable expenses; traveling for the was expenses, purpose traveling of it was nor lost, no wallet, part plaintiff’s which, nor innkeepers, lost, anything any baggage as such. receive with were bound to 3d. That loss was caused by plaintiff neglect have 4th. himself himself. That should depo- in the safe. 5th. That the sited the money *3 authorized to of the to the delivery any person proved That man- of defendants. 6th. the receive it hotel the in the without notice the delivered, ner which was a the amount, of the nature of large disguise package, and fraud on the defendants.
The motion was denied, the defendants’ counsel ex- cepted.
The the counsel for the to requested judge the in same to the embody instructions propositions jury, to also additional viz.: instructions, give following That if the believe the was delivered to jury envelope that, he was not the authorized defend- servant, agent ants for money, beyond reception safe-keeping mere find should for traveling expenses jury guest, defendants. did of the said give judge propositions specifi- in the course but, some
cally, adopted charge, parts thereof only. directed that, they judge jury, substance,
believed delivered the with the package, claimed contents to the office of him, person defendants, authorized receive it, they safe'keeping, its were bound account for liable for value, were that it was immaterial the loss interest; with whether occur- in their or whether was still red by robbery neglect, possession. direction
The defendants excepted specifically liable more or reason- were than necessary anything also to the direction that able plain- traveling expenses; v. Eable. Statement of case. entitled of the'
tiff is to recover the value of contents to the refusal to on the also question envelope; charge so plaintiff’s negligence; they excepted generally much as is not in accordance with charge proposi- submitted. tions rendered verdict for the jury general plaintiff;
$21,649.27. under the directions
And, found the judge, viz.: facts, following specially,
1st. That the its for whose value envelope, contents, their verdict been on its forthwith, delivery given, in the defendant’s him person employment, deposited by the safe the defendants for the provided by safe-keeping articles at their hotel, deposited guests pursuant notice affixed them such hotel.
2d. such he did That, delivery by abstain to the defendants and the communicating person so the same nature value of the contents of receiving *4 intent to conceal the same. envelope 3d. That the to whom such and its con- person envelope tents were delivered was authorized the defendants to by receive on their behalf for the safe provided by them, notice which affixed were pursuant copies hotel, their articles of value received from throughout guests for safekeeping.
4th. That $1,000 was reasonable sum of for the traveling expenses plaintiff. ordered the so taken to be heard at exceptions judge Term the first and the instance, General entry judg-
ment meanwhile to be suspended. heard at case was afterward the General Term on the and the facts taken, so found
exceptions specially jury modified so where verdict was reduce the amount to the sum of $1,000 interest to the $1,080.89, being day trial, ifas the same had been found sustain- jury, of the defendants to the refusal to instruct ing exceptions could recover only necessary y. Earle.
176
Wilkids
Statement
case.
and reasonable
all
other
traveling expenses,
overruling
taken. The motion of the defendants for
new
exceptions
'
trial was
for the
the ver-
denied,
judgment
dict
with the
so-modified,
action,
costs
was thereupon
ordered.
was entered
for the plaintiff'
Judgment
accordingly
$2,054.56
and costs.
damages
to the Court
plaintiff appealed
judgment
no
has
taken
but
been
defendants.
appeal
Appeals,
The case below
352.
Robertson,
reported
.
W.
for the
George
Parsons,
on the
appellant,
general ques
tion of
cited 1
430;
Blackstone’s
liability,
Comm.,
Calye’s
Case, 8
Coke, 33; Kent’s Comm.,
Comm.,
893; Story’s
470; Kent v.
306,
Struckard
Barn. &
803);
(2
Adolph,
§
Lane v. Cotton Mod. R.,
Holt,
J.,
Ch.
Richmond
(12
487);
v.
Barn.
Smith
&
(8
Cress.,
v.
9); Kemps
Coughtry (11
Cole v.
Johns., 107);
Cowed,
Goodwin (19 Wend.,
J.);
269,
v. Manny (12 Wend.,
Grinnell v.
Piper
2);
Hill,
Cook (3
Bronson,
McDonald v.
Barb., 560);
485,
J.);
Edgerton (5
v. Meller T. R.,
Bennett
v.
(5
Clute
Johns.,
273);
Wiggins (14
Gile v.
Barb.,
Libbey (36
Berkshire
Co.
175);
74);
Woolen
Cush.,
v. Procton
Needles D.
(7
v.
D.
E.
417);
Howard (1
v.
Quinton
D. Smith,
Courtney
N.
54);
C., 41);
(Hay.
v. Brewster
Dwight
Pick.,
v.
(1
Monnot
80); Taylor
(4
Ingra
v.
Duer,
Stanton
Leland
D.
(4 E.
Smith, 88,
116);
Woodruff,
Van
v.
JJ.);
Wyck
Howard (12
Daly,
ham,
How.
Burrows v.
Pr.,
Trieber
147);
(
Gordon
Bowers
4
Penn.,
v.
(16
Harris,
Sheldon
226);
Hudson R.
Co.
14
Kern.,
R.
N.
Barker v.
(4
Y.,
N.
218);
Y. Central R. R.
Y.
Co. N.
1
(24
Phil.
R.,
;
;
Ev., 739
599)
v.
Holt Crume
Sel. Cas.,
Arnold v.
(Litt.
499,
Goir
500);
(1
Rawl. Penn., 223,
Martin v. Maverick
225);
(
Francis to the extent Kernan, for respondent, cited McDonald v. (5 Barb., liability, Edgarton 560); v. Bennett T. Miller 2 Kent’s R., Comm., 593-4; (5 273); v. Mason Pick., ; Writ, Form of Fitz. N. Thompson (9 280) B., 94; Edwards on Bailments, 620, 414, 403,408; App., pp. v. Brown Orange 114, Bank Jones Country Wend., (9 585); on Law v. Bailments, 956, 103; Cotton Vin. Abr., (1 219); v. &Barn. Bacon’s Thompson ; Abr., Lacy (3 Ald., Inns, 283) 3 & etc., C., 1, ; W., 1 C. Rex v. Luellin 404; Mad., (12 Rex v. C. & P., Jones 445); Fell v. M. & (7 Wright 213); (8 W., S., Clements & v. M. 276); Burgess Broad (4 306); wood v. L. Exch., 24 Exch., C., J., Granara S. (10 1; 417); 1C., S. Jurist 19 ; ed., 4, N. Year 5th Easter S., Book, T., 20 v. Pl., ; Hall 50; b.; 158, Pope Keilway Rep., Dyer, (14 Ann. (28 La. R., Vermont, McDaniels v. Robinson 324); 434, 449, v. Barrow 387); Pettigrew (11 Maryland, 450); v. Martin v. Cal. Brown Giles R., Fauntleroy (1 225); ; v. Duer, Monnott (13 Taylor Maryland, (4 116) 126); B. & Parson’s Cont., A., 629 Kent v. Schursard ; 805); (2 v. v. W. Hawkins R., Pardee Drew (25 458); Hoffman Hilt., Bell v. v. Loescher (6 Hill, (1 499); 586); Nerdeymer Drew E. D. v. Thompson (id., (4 178); Smith, 59); Duffy Richards v. R. R. Co. 181); v. Hudson (id., McCormick Railroad v. River Co. Weitcott Jordan Fall Bos., (2 589); Cush., (5 69). should of plaintiff question part negligence v. Donovan,
have been submitted (Benton jury. 319; & P., 3 C. Waterhouse, B. & 21; Ald., Bradley — Hand Yol. V.
178 Earle. v. Leonard, Court, per R., & Starkie’s Clements, S., 306; v. M. Burgess 249.) discredit
As to the should refusal charge W. 637, he cited v. Clark Forsyth (3 R., 643); v. id., Davis 602, People (16 607). of the
That was evidence error receive possession Jackson times, cited v. previous money by v. v. Cow., Parker, Etz Colt (1 People (5 People 611); 314); v. v. Hill, Seld., Hulse Fowler (3 People Gay (3 309); 378); v. Ins. Starks Cow., (5 Denio, Arctic Co. 673); People (6 106). An insurer of the safety innkeeper Leonard, C. of his He of the brought hospitium. property guest, imfra theft, for its whether fire or loss, is liable by burglary, negli unless it arises or misconduct of the neglect gence, or the act of God His enemies. public liability guest, and even to extends wearing apparel, jewelry, money, and other articles of bulk horses, wheat, butter belonging if received into his care and guest, his entertainment. This is rule of the place within enforced of Lord common-law, days long Coke, as well in since, ever England State. prior, Y. 33 N. R., numerous cases there (Hulett 371, Swift, The rule is but not severe, referred as considered to.) unjust, of the with reference as well as the land rights guest fix The landlord can does his lord. compensation furnished and risks encountered. The entertainment guest or terms, his seek another must inn. landlord accept He is controls servants. secured employs pay his lien on the his ment of charges by property guest which he detain his board and may within premises, If can occur, a loss seldom obtain guest lodging. to the manner of it. The servants inte respect proof their their and unless care will preserve rested employer, him are indifferent to from loss interests guest. landlord liability protects pro absent. when temporarily asleep perty *7 y. Eabm¡. Wilkhís Opinion Court,-per Leonabd,- Com.
The character of our hotel-keepers present day, localities where and ladies resort gentlemen who can afford to liberal their for pay prices above entertainment, any of with their suspicion servants or complicity others to betray the confidence of their The rule of guests. public policy does admit of not, however, relaxation. any just Bobbery and theft still occur, present case, from depravity even at the most servants, fashionable and first-classhotels. Bor can a different rule be held for or inns hotels of the class referred and those which to, offer entertainment for the trav- eler in less refined circumstances or situations. The rule must be uniform, applicable protect rights him narrow means whose guest resort an compel inn aof different class from that the defendants. kept by
There are reasons public forbid the many policy rule to common carriers from applicable being incorporated into the inn or law the lia affecting hotel-keepers, limiting for the loss of to sums bility necessary traveling them are Some of referred to expenses. above, others are in Hulett mentioned The (supra). that Swift case was held to be bound that loss prove goods of his fire did not occur his negligence; is, he loss, was liable unless could prove fire Grod, the act of or from some cause not within occurring “ control. was there said the considerations of in which the rule had its forbid public policy origin, relaxation its rigor.”
The law rule of the common has been to some rigorous extent modified in this State statute. of a proprietor at the safe, office, hotel now to be may kept provide fact, their guests may deposit notify ornaments notice in therein, by posting money, jewels room the and his such arti- neglect guest; L., loss. cles, liability relieves (Sess proprietor 1855, eh. 421, p. 774.) with this law. They pro- defendants fully complied office, at the and posted
vided safe which kept iron v. Bable. Wmmrs Leonard, of the Court, per as the law required. notices thereof conspicuously, with the condition which on his complied part, *8 the if liability law desired to continue him, imposed had which he money, of the landlord. He delivered his pre- in a sealed envelope, carried his up person, put viously upon a servant in the who thereon, office, with his to name written in a to had the be safe, access to the of key appeared the his On of confidence with employers. inquiry, position Ho stated the contained money. plaintiff package asked. Ho was made to further question objection mark. He servant of the label or saw the open sufficiency his safe and therein deposit package. statute, under defendants, The of the provisions acting to in them confidence, invited the plaintiff repose do, the common-lawhe the rules of was not required of their protection order to responsibility. enjoy thus in were secure possession, any against contents, or its due loss as to exercised package, must see should Certainly, they key vigilance. to safe hands. had taken intrusted from They be only for care or on his vigilance part. every opportunity him as and had had received received guest, They their without safe-keeping, any objection. Clearly, money of as it for the loss became then money liability great the act 1855. common-law, before of Greater need case, is for the nor not necessary plaintiff’s liability be stated. greater effect
If the act of 1855 has nature upon him hotel, of a to create is liability proprietor to safely bailee, by contract, keep special implied of his etc., when he receives return, money, jewels him iron then rests safe. proof occurred establish, God, loss act public He or the or misconduct the owner. enemies, neglect and valuables relieved from belonging guarding hotel; of his liability to tlie rooms large occupants and uncertain which is reduced dimensions, great v. Earle. IStO.] Court, per Leonard, of the act to the as to the vigilance scrutiny custody required of the and the key, of the various right delivery parcels.
The defendants have no cause of complaint against as the manner of the He answered deposit. asked him every question satisfaction agent, whom defendants intrusted the receipt package. did not ask him how much agent package contained, nor to other it than label on the name of put any the owner, which had been indorsed. The defend- already ants received the without having package any objection these respects, it within the or caused having placed safe, it to be placed there, estopped objecting did not communicate the contents, label properly *9 the Bor can it be said, that the was package. agent authorized to the receive to nor commit the defend- package, ants to the amount of any liability, beyond money required for the of the It does not traveling expenses plaintiff. appear that the defendants ever the instructions in gave agent any and the have the found fact respect, the against as defendants, If the ser- agent’s authority the specially. vant was not authorized, well be may asked, was he why to be the and permitted within the office, iron open safe, therein ? It was either package culpable neg- defendants, the servant ligence permitting occupy an apparently office,obtain the responsible position the key, open safe, intrusted with being voluntarily was such act belief, warranted the he was authorized them. Either alternative was sufficient quite them make conferred the chargeable neces- having on the sary servant. authority
It is said that the question contributing negligence the to have been submitted to the part plaintiff ought Such defence would if it one, existed, be jury. good to have been if there submitted inquiry ought any But I evidence to warrant it. am loss to discover wholly evidence to raise the nor has the learned slightest question; counsel for defendants mentioned any upon points. y. Bable. Court, Lbonaed, per iron safe, in their The defendants the plaintiff’s money It is in their under lock key possession. key, what to perceive negligence impossible contributing If have reached it. there was could any question that of it was affecting question liability, negligence of the safe to into defendants key suffering get after receiv- of then* dishonest servant on hands morning the package. ing
A taken few of minor were exceptions importance which are trial, found upon points during of their which I will to notice, counsel, proceed although defendants, no has been judgment against appeal taken entitled them, and, my opinion, they consideration for reason. trial,
The at the close of the to instruct asked, judge “that relation of material facts is plaintiff’s jury, in one or more contradicted about which important particulars, be deemed is not mistaken, he cannot evidence simply instructed them that entitled to credit.” were judge in that case, to disbelieve the whole authorized, plaintiff’s were not bound to do so. statement, but was not correct. that his evi- mere fact request contradicted, as to fact or as to which he facts, dence was *10 not was not conclusive as to the mistaken, could be simply The the evidence as to those facts. of jury might falsity The the contradicted. evidence, although have believed jury the evidence to be in some false, must believe parti- willfully are authorized to discredit the whole evi- before they cular, This element of is in a witness. the falsity dence of wanting have refused to and might properly judge give request, What he did was as direction. favorable was say, the- the law. authorized by called three witnesses who proved
The plaintiff had him and sold saw him him, goods, acquainted were of his arrival in the of New of day city the 20th April, him in a business as a had known merchant way and York, The was taken under evidence objection several years. y. Bable. Leonard, of Oom. Court, per was not defendants. testimony exception by had material effect. could not have material, very any the defendants to it had effect Perhaps challenging to, make wish plain inquiries they might concerning any tiff and his who knew history, him, persons being a distant State. stranger was his own introduced as witness on plaintiff behalf, the route cross-examined tra great length, touching in
veled
him
to New
asso
York,
coming
dress, baggage,
ciates,
business, from which it
that he
dealings
appeared
had
no
and had
made no
under
brought
baggage,
change
—
several
days
circumstances which
lead
clothing
might
in the minds
doubts
whether the
plaintiff
the amount
have
been lost. The
money alleged
plain
tiff
introduced
afterward
evidence
that he was in the
showing
sums
of the kind of
to have
possession
large
money alleged
been lost
to his
the lost
immediately prior
depositing
package
with the defendants. An
was
taken to
admis
exception
It
sion of this evidence.
was admissible to rebut the infer
be drawn from
cross-examination,
ences
plaintiff’s
liable
had the
to show
tended
also
he had lost.
issue whether
was
which he alleged
in his
at the time
had the
possession
and the evidence tended to
fact.
prove
place alleged;
what had been
into the
put
sought
prove
and what was seen to
loss,
before
alleged
safe
evening
plaintiff;
package
when examining
be
the safe
there the
safe
not
evening
also, what was
and the defendants ex-
excluded,
all of which
before;
admissible.
Ho
evidence was clearly
This
cepted.
evidence
be established by
sought.
material fact could
no
is
defence.
defendants were
negligent
Proof that
Hunt, the 20th, 1863, the April evening plaintiff deposited for safe in his defendant, vault, agent keeping pack- of the value of about to whom age $21,000; person the forthwith the delivered, same deposited package for that safe the defendants provided purpose by pursuant to their that notice; whom person package delivered, was authorized the defendant to receive the same on their for the in their safe. behalf, purpose deposit Upon to the clerk office, delivering package that he testifies, wrote his plaintiff name same, upon the clerk its contents, which inquired that it contained that without further replied, money, inquiry, the clerk the same in then the safe. The deposited asked for check or clerk receipt, replied, never checks, but gave required applicant upon it. The found a demanding property, identify jury verdict for the value of the which, thus package delivered, demand the next failed morning, return to the plaintiff. at the held under these trial, circumstances, judge, defendants were at for the entire value all, responsible,
of this At the General held that Term, the court package. a rea- defendants were to the extent of responsible only sonable sum for the This expenses plaintiff. traveling to a sum, response inquiry by special judge fixed as the sum trial, $1,000. Our is principal duty to determine which of these rules is the correct one.
Whether the defendants were to receive on bound not in sum, so large question, They receive did *12 Wilkins Eaele. Hunt, Court, per it in their their deposited safe, notice, of pursuance the statute which it was authorized. Whether the label the same was a sufficient notice, with then* upon compliance not is before us. The statute makes no mention aof label, can be more than this term used in nothing vague then* notice. The most idea of a label is not of general of or but written separate strip paper parchment, descrip- tion the article which it is upon or as to its placed made, or or character, or ownership, extent. The name of quality Mr. was a It label. indicated the ownership. sum $20,000, written would upon have envelope, been a label. It indicated the value of the A sim- parcel. indorsement of the word or ple would have money, valuables, been If label. deemed a label important, and wished to raise a of law question sufficiency the label this should have made a they package, specific point upon trial, asked for a there. This ruling did do, and the cannot be question made court. of an liability innkeeper guest, his goods
has been settled for centuries. The of 1855 act does to create it nor even declare It purport it. assumes the It liability. enacts whenever the anof hotel, proprietors shall a safe in their officefor the provide keeping money, or to their ornaments, and shall jewels, guests, belonging their and a thereof, shall notify to deposit guests guest neglect his or ornaments shall therein, money, proprietor jewels not be liable loss same This act guest. assumes that before its was liable for passage, It the loss of the or ornaments money, jewels, guest. if a is liable, that he still remains made assumes of his or terms money jewels, according restricts the act. It neither liability. enlarges it, with the as to leaves it as the fixes condition common-law if a notice particular given by jewels, shall such not attach unless the liability innkeeper, safe. In the case office present jewels deposited Y. Hand—Yol. y. Bable. *13 Wilkins Hunt, of the Com. per
Opinion Court, with. and the was this conditien complied notice given it. as fixed the common-law therefore stands liability terms conceded In in its is which rule, support general I will hereafter is authorities. it to cite by all, necessary bear in their facts upon refer to some of which those, in now contention. point for the in the authorities
Is or there basis any principle that an innkeeper to defendant, wit., made distinction by such an is necessary is liable amount money only This distinction of the % ‘for the reasonable expenses guest of a the case to be maintained is analogy sought carrier of who is liable or articles for money passengers, only convenient the traveler on and not for goods journey, or merchandise as I will such. cite few many among as well as in of this cases those courts, reported English State, to show this distinction cannot be maintained. I think it will liable is appear innkeeper value all his it intended for the whether be lost, property for his or or for other convenience, traffic, personal or permanent general purpose. laid Lord Coke
The law was down Calge’s correctly than 250 since. Co. case, 203, more (8 Rep., 32a.) years law That case contains an abstract of the touching “It curiam liabilities innkeepers. resolvedpertotam if man 1. to a inn, this term. That comes common him to he hostler, put delivers horse requires stolen, and the horse is is done pasture, accordingly, it. 2. words answer for the innholder shall not eorwm, the horse and because eb hospibia, bona caballa infra is pasture, at the owner put which, request to answer bound law the innholder is not hosjpibium, imfra * * but was him if he stolen out pasture be the inn- doth but if the owner not require holden horse head, to grass, of his own holder, puts guest’s * * * if stolen. 5. him he be Although answer for shall eorwm, of their nature oaballa do not bona eb proper the words inherí- or freehold, and evidences to charters extend concerning Earle. Court, per Hunt, or tance, or other deeds or obligations, specialties, being action, things case it is the latter yet expounded by words to extend to them; therefore one brings bag chest, evidences into the inn as etc., deeds, obligations, or other default of the specialties, innkeeper they are taken shall away, answer for them, writ bona shall be catalla and the declaration shall generally, be special.”
In v. Bennet Mellor T. R., the (5 case was this: The 273) had taken a plaintiff’s servant market to quantity goods sell. of them, unable he went Being dispose with them to inn, the defendant’s and asked defendant’s wife he could leave the there till the next market the week goods day, follow that She she could for tell, were ing. replied they very full of The servant then sat had down, some parcels. liquor, and on floor behind him. put goods immediately When he after a little while, up, were got sitting goods A was had, which, rule to show missing. recovery and Grose, JJ., cause before was sustained. Buller Ashourt, It that the here will be observed was merchandise, subject had taken and he market, which the servant which wished It had to store until the next market none of the day. quality or of articles convenience. personal baggage Ad., B. & is, In Kent v. Shuckard head-note (2 803) “An to his responsible innkeeper money belonging The and his wife were at the defend guests guest.” plaintiff inn. wife left her reticule, ant’s The on containing money, it in a few it was minutes, her bed. Beturning gone. the amount of the lost. On The does not state report trial it on behalf was urged, innkeeper, chattels not for only, was money. responsible goods and on a a verdict for the motion found plaintiff; and Justices Parke, before Lord Chief Justice Tenterden Andrews, taken. the same was point Patteson, Taunton are liable for that while innkeepers goods urged, sergeant, “ are chattels, is no to show there authority their no limit to there will be be, so for If they money. y. Eable. Hunt, Court, per or form An cannot know innkeeper responsibility. of the amount of have.” may guest judgment court responsible sustained verdict, innkeeper holding for the money. &
In Jones v. Ad. horse (1 Tyler Ellis) gig who hostler, the defendant’s were taken charge by been street. having open gig placed gig held was stolen, responsible. B. was a v. & Creswell, 9)
Richmond Smith (8 recovery of silk for the value of certain innkeeper, against packages for sale. The defence plaintiff exposed that the had taken the attempted ground in his under his own room. protection private goods circumstance articles were goods argued afforded defence. of merchandise in our the same character own State. reports Of J. was this: The R., (14 Clute Wiggins 175) inn a load the defendant’s of wheat and came barley, *15 as a for The and received horses were guest night. his with its contents a stable, into into sleigh put it usual for the where was defendant receive wagon-house, The that next was discovered loads of description. morning been that had broken and the wheat the wagon-house open, made The two 1. That stolen. points: barley into not been delivered his special custody. goods he no That derived wheat. profit 2. keeping for the value of the was sustained. grain recovery Wend., v. Fish (8 In Hallenbake 547), plaintiff stopped at the defendant’s inn, with his horse upon calling be his and bridle could not found. The saddle horse, trover for the saddle bridle. The plaintiff brought held, trover, must an actual Court prove Supreme a and that conversion was not conversion, sufficientlyproved. facts there be no could upon presented, say, They on the case custom, action have doubt would lain the defendant. against Bable. Wit-kins Hunt, Oourt, per Wend., v. Many (21 283),
In Piper defendant’s at the of butter, load stopped horses sleigh the night. A his butter was stolen during inn. of portion on the himself ground, The defendant endeavored protect left but was inn, within that the butter was brought liable. held the defendant The court yard. Y. N. Hulet v. 1865, (35 So year recently Swift ser The plaintiff’s a similar case was R., presented. 571), and load of buckskin goods, horses, with his vant, wagon, A fire inn. occurred at the defendant’s stopped night It which the was destroyed. property night, during and there nowas the fire how originated, did not appear the defendant. on the part evidence negligence be was held to defendant responsible. Com., See also, 480-1; Story
On the principle, general § 593. 2 Kent’s Com., 430; Com., 2 Bl. that the distinction contended show
The cases cited, I am not be maintained. counsel cannot the defendant’s which nor case sustains aware of single reported to it. writer, who countenance gives elementary times violence, early true, days It is have away. to the traveler, passed this protection required fraud. less that we are however, certain, exposed It is not It than our fathers. and better wiser We have may grown be, that we have. may however, change is to be hoped two-handed rather than morals. day of manners and finesse that of has by; sleight-of-hand broad-sword gone robbed in. A less being danger has come *16 He is now not of cheated. but murdered, being possibly in the actual and his valuables his money to place required for his condition host, of his protection custody makes no The law pro- and (Laws 1855.) jewels. In case before of this evidence deposit. vision for any his He money, to deposits declined any. clerk us, give and he can do nothing all he knows about and that is has he say its toward protection. May has excused? Who that he is and robbed, been thereby y. Eaele. Hunt, Court, per of he him, robbed or his servant? say stranger Hay it. amount is too ? He has means of protecting large ample in If is safe and servants himself honest, its This he is bound to deposit. honesty guaranty. in nnless is of the host,- quite power rule will be ancient to the maintained, public danger I in the see condition society, great. present nothing its relaxation. modes of calls for business, doing I will make some minor to which points, that if the contribu- refer. They say, plaintiff’s negligence of his and that the loss, recover, ted to the he cannot question There should have been submitted negligence jury. had leave If it was to to nothing upon point jury. it would been so found left, jury negligence, have been the of the court to set aside the verdict. duty asked the court to defendants, charge, that, again, material in relation of facts was contradicted impor- plaintiff’s tant about which he evi- mistaken, could not be particulars to dence was not entitled credit. This was simply asking as matter hold, court usurp province jury, in a conflict of the defendants’ witnesses law, that, evidence, and the The court were was plaintiff wrong. right if the believed that that, very properly charged, was contradicted testimony plaintiff important par- whose his in ticulars witnesses testimony preferred they to transactions testified to author- both, were regard whole disbelieve his statement. were not bound, ized to They authorized, were to do so. but they that it error admit say, also, The defendants was evidence at a time anterior and at that, deposit, place alleged seen in bills distant, possession money with the to allow appearance deposit, corresponding to state its amount.- The witness evidence probable this character. He testified that, was of Hitchell April, on the 20th of that month—-the being 1863—the his office while there Philadelphia, drafts, him take out an two French saw envelope containing *17 Eaele. Court, per Hunt, amount drawn the Citizens’ Bank Louisiana, large several notes and money, $1,000 several notes (green- $100 and that, he not he backs), it, did count was satisfied although he that saw admitted $12,000 $15,000. judge and it must be it evidence; conceded that was calculated with favor. produce impression plaintiff’s The" testified that plaintiff he made with deposit defendants’ clerk included two French drawn drafts, Bank Citizens’ of Louisiana and that Paris, parties consisted, other items, of number among gov- ernment bills called from their (commonly greenbacks, color), of the denomination $1,000 $100.
I think no one would have denied the of this admissibility evidence, the time and had been Earle’s place hotel and 20th after tea. The April that, after at plaintiff tea, six says or seven o’clock on in the hall near that the water evening, closet, he these securities in a new put envelope, proceeded to the office made directly and. If some had one deposit. seen these drafts and these while bills thus the course of and had been able to transfer, as much definiteness speak amount as think Mitchell I did, would be evidence, he did not although have him accompany plaintiff, con under his until he made stantly eye, To deposit. reject would evince too much and fastidiousness in nicety apply the rules law. true that the fact ing had this and these does securities prove certainly that he made the It is true could deposit. equally have made the he testifies unless he them. to, had When therefore, before the 20th of you prove, shortly had in his drafts April possession particular which he claims to have and the bills of deposited, particular which he also $1,000 claims some $100 deposited, to.have links the chain are furnished. Their strength depends their nearness and relation the transaction. (Kennedy v. The Y., N. A, o’clock, If seven People, 245.) seen this and its and B, with the envelope contents at five seven, minutes him make had seen past deposit,
192 v. Roberts. oe Auburn The Bank of case. Statement be con inference of could, think the jury, I two he was interval when was an there nected although together, There legal presumption of either. is within the sight is once established presumed of continuance. A partnership is to exist. Possession pre Life is presumed continue. a man that was gambler twenty fact sumed to continue. The he continues since, months justifies presumption continue. is adulterous presumed be one. An intercourse v. 9 Barb., Ball, and non-residence. Waleod ( So of ownership 4 v. Smith, Smith Dedrich, id., 516; Paige, v. 22 271; Cooper v. 443; 2 Seld., v. Van 432; Harrison, Sleeper McMahon Denio, Palmer, Barb., Nixon v. 431; Middleworth, case, is This applicable 175.) fairly present analogy this evidence. admission justifies am of the order of case, whole Upon opinion I be Term, $1,000, the G-eneral reversed, directing judgment he entered the verdict of costs, upon judgment with costs. jury, All concur. ordered for the reversed,
Judgment judgment from rendition of verdict. interest $21,649.27, — protection innkeepers, Note. to the act of 1855 affords to As Taylor (3 Hand, 258), Hyatt decided, giving see where construction Jersey substantially of New statute State same effect as own, complies provisions our who with the act on any part jewels money, ornaments, for the loss is not liable safe.—Reporter. deposited in the v. Lewis Roberts Respondent, Auburn, Bank others, Appellants. Moneys compensation o to the of land for awarded State wners damages (depreciation property, of a value mill occasioned prior canal), subject mortgage abandonment of of a lien land, satisfy deficiency upon to the extent of thereof to sufficient premises. foreclosure sale of the