Adelphia Hotel Co. v. Providence Stock Co.

• Decision Date: 12 January 1922
• Docket Number: 2748.
• Citation: 277 F. 905
• Parties: ADELPHIA HOTEL CO. v. PROVIDENCE STOCK CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

277 F. 905

ADELPHIA HOTEL CO. v. PROVIDENCE STOCK CO.

No. 2748.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

January 12, 1922

Ralph B. Evans, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff in error.

Charles J. Biddle, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant in error.

Before WOOLLEY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and LYNCH, District Judge.

WOOLLEY Circuit Judge.

The action is in trespass for the loss of the contents of a trunk. It was brought on the liability of the defendant hotel company for the safe keeping of a trunk committed to its care under circumstances presently to be stated. The verdict was for the plaintiff. After judgment the defendant sued out this writ of error.

Samuels was a traveling salesman in the employ of the plaintiff, a jewelry concern of Providence, Rhode Island. When in Philadelphia he had regularly been a guest at the Hotel Adelphia, operated by the defendant company.

On the trip in question Samuels went from the station to the hotel in a taxicab and took with him his trunk of jewelry samples. Arriving at the hotel, he deposited the trunk in a vault provided by the hotel for the storage of valuables, and paid a hotel employe in charge of the vault one dollar for its storage. In return he received a brass vault check with a number and the name 'Hotel Adelphia' on it. The defendant company admits that on receiving the trunk it knew that it contained jewelry.

Being unable to obtain lodging at the hotel, Samuels spent the night elsewhere. The next morning he went to the hotel and took some jewelry out of the trunk for the purpose of calling on his customers. Later, he returned, replaced the jewelry and arranged with the head porter to have the trunk taken to the station. Samuels surrendered the vault check to the porter, and on paying him fifty cents for transportation received a transfer check upon which also appeared a number and the name 'Hotel Adelphia.' He then had lunch at the hotel.

The head porter had his desk in the main lobby of the hotel and was in full charge of the transfer of baggage in and out. Under an arrangement with the hotel company he hired and paid the under porters and wagon drivers and owned the horses and wagons. Ordinarily, guests paid him for the transportation of their baggage but sometimes charges for the service were entered on guests' bills. In both cases the money directly or indirectly, was paid the head porter and was retained by him as his own. The under porters wore caps bearing the words 'Hotel Adelphia' and on the sides of the wagons the same words were painted. The upkeep and appearance of the transportation equipment was inspected by the manager of the hotel.

After lunch, Samuels learned that his trunk had not yet gone to the station. Whereupon the head porter sent another porter to the vault to get it off. The trunk was taken out by the vaultkeeper and put on a wagon by an elevator man and Cohen the driver of the wagon. Cohen drove off with the trunk and stole it.

The head porter denied that he had employed Cohen. The relation of Cohen to the head porter and to the hotel appears from testimony that on the morning of the day in question Cohen applied to the head porter for a position as driver. The head porter asked him about his qualifications and told him to go around with one of the drivers, learn the locations of the stations, and on his return he would let him know whether he had a position for him. No inquiry was made as to his name or address. Later, Cohen had lunch at the hotel with the employees. He brought the wagon to the hotel and was the only one on it when he drove away with the trunk.

The defendant rested its defense on two propositions: First, that between Samuels and the defendant there was not the relation of guest and innkeeper; and, second, that the head porter when he accepted the trunk for transfer and received the whole consideration for the service, was acting, not as the servant of the defendant innkeeper, but as an independent contractor.

Taking the second ground first the court, rightly we think, refused for lack of evidence to submit to the jury an issue whether the head porter was an independent contractor. Where an innkeeper, offering the public entertainment and care, puts a person in the position of a servant with the duties of a servant with respect to the facilities of such entertainment, and reserves and exercises control over his work, and says nothing and does nothing whereby a private arrangement to the contrary is disclosed to the public, and so constructively to the plaintiff, the principal is estopped from disclaiming the relation of master to the person so positioned and from avoiding liability for his negligence. Dickinson v. Winchester, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 114, 50 Am.Dec. 760.

Putting aside the question whether the head porter was an independent contractor, the trial court submitted the case to the jury not on the defendant's liability arising alone from the relation of innkeeper and guest, where care of baggage is an incident to the entertainment of the guest, but mainly on the ground that Samuels' payment of money for the care and transportation of his trunk and the innkeeper's acceptance of the money for the service promised and undertaken, raised between the parties at least the relation of bailor and bailee for hire. Admittedly, an innkeeper may, as a bailee, with or without reward, receive goods from one who is not strictly his guest. 14 Ruling Case Law,...