Burbank v. Chapin
| Decision Date | 21 September 1885 |
| Citation | 140 Mass. 123,2 N.E. 934 |
| Parties | Abraham Burbank v. Charles W. Chapin |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Contract upon an account annexed, for board and lodging at the plaintiff's inn. The defendant, in his answer, sought to recoup the value of certain articles stolen from his room while a guest at the inn. Trial in the Superior Court without a jury, before Rockwell, J., who found for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
Exceptions sustained.
E. M Wood, for the defendant.
J. F Noxon, for the plaintiff.
OPINION
Morton C. J.
The only question which appears to have been raised at the trial is whether the plaintiff, who is an innholder, is liable for the value of certain wearing-apparel of the defendant, which was stolen from his room while he was a guest at the plaintiff's inn.
The case was tried by the presiding justice of the Superior Court, without a jury. He found as facts, that the plaintiff was an innholder; that the defendant was a guest at the inn; that two coats of the defendant were stolen from his room; that, before the theft, certain printed regulations were posted in the rooms of the inn, one of which was in these words: "Lock the door when going out, and leave the key at the office;" that the defendant knew of this regulation; that, on the occasion when the coats were stolen, he did not leave his key at the office; and that the regulation was a reasonable one. He thereupon "ruled, as matter of law, that, the defendant having failed to leave his key at the office at the time of the loss of the goods, he could not recover by way of recoupment for their value." The defendant asked the judge to rule, "that, notwithstanding the printed regulation, the defendant could recover, unless it should appear that the loss was occasioned by reason of the defendant having failed to comply with said regulation;" which the court refused. Construing the ruling given with the ruling asked for and refused, it appears that the learned judge intended to rule, as matter of law, that, if the defendant knew of the regulation and failed to comply with it, the plaintiff was exonerated from responsibility, without any inquiry into the question whether the loss was attributable to the failure to comply with the regulation. We are of opinion that this was erroneous.
At common law,...
To continue reading
Request your trial