Carter v. Hobbs

• Decision Date: 10 November 1863
• Citation: 12 Mich. 52
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Robert Carter v. Henry Hobbs

12 Mich. 52

Robert Carter v. Henry Hobbs

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 10, 1863

Heard October 16, 1863

Case made after judgment, fro Saginaw Circuit.

The action was originally commenced before a justice of the peace, and plaintiff declared, "for that, whereas the plaintiff became and was a proper guest at the inn of the defendant, kept in the city of East Saginaw, Saginaw county on the 21st day of February, 1862, and this plaintiff deposited with defendant, as inn-keeper his (plaintiff's) overcoat, and a pair of gloves and a fur collar, all of the value of $ 25; that when plaintiff saw fit to leave he called for his said coat, gloves, and collar, and the defendant did not then, nor has he since, delivered said goods to the plaintiff, although often requested so to do. The plaintiff asks of the court a judgment for the recovery of the value of said goods, as above enumerated."

The case having been removed to the Circuit Court, by appeal evidence was there given upon which the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The facts shown by the evidence are set forth in the opinion.

Judgment of the court reversed, and the defendant entitled to a judgment in this court for his costs in both courts.

Sutherland & Miller, for plaintiff, argued that, even if the plaintiff did not become the guest of defendant, the latter would be liable for not returning the goods, unless they were lost without his fault. But the plaintiff did become his guest, in a legal sense, so that he is responsible for the goods, unless they were lost by the act of God, the public enemies, or by the act of the plaintiff: Edw. on Bailm., 402-7; 9 Pick. 280; 5 Barb. 564; 5 Blackf. 323; 14 Johns. 175; 9 Wend. 114; 3 Hill 488; 1 A. & E., 522; 5 Q. B., 164; 8 Wend. 547; Story on Bailm., § 470.

W. L. Webber, for defendant:

The extraordinary liability of the inn-keeper does not exist except as to those who are the guests of the house: Edw. on Bailm., 394-412; 8 Blackf. 537; 3 Hill 488. Plaintiff was not such a guest. See definitions: "Guest," Webster, New Am. Cyc., Bouv. Law Dic.; "Inn," Bac. Abr., "Inns, B."; Calye's case, 8 Coke 32, and note in 1 Smith Lead. Cas.; 7 Cush. 417; 3 Hill 488; Story on Bailm., § 477; Bateman's Merc. Law, 453-9. Plaintiff did not visit either the house or the saloon for the purpose for which inns were instituted. He went not as a traveler, nor as one seeking rest and lodgings, but for amusement, and merely because the party happened to be at that house. Had it been at a public hall, unconnected with a hotel, he would hardly have claimed the extraordinary liability of an inn-keeper to exist. Defendant had nothing to do with the individuals who attended the party; he did not look to them for pay, and could have no lien therefor upon goods deposited by them with him.

OPINION

Christiancy J.:

The plaintiff seeks to recover for the loss of his property, solely upon the ground of the defendant's liability as inn-keeper; and his declaration will not warrant a recovery on the liability of an ordinary bailee. The facts of the case, so far as they are material to the question, are undisputed, and are substantially these: The defendant was the keeper of an inn or hotel, in East Saginaw, known as the Bancroft House. The plaintiff, though not a resident of the place, was at the time a guest at another inn, across the street, known as the Exchange Hotel, where he lodged and took his meals.

There was a firemen's ball at the defendant's hotel on the night in question, which the plaintiff attended. The arrangement for the ball between the fire company and the defendant was, that defendant was to furnish dancing-room, supper and dressing-rooms, and was to be paid by the company one dollar for each supper ticket. The tickets for admission to the ball were sold by a committee of the fire company at different places (part of them being sold at the door of the baggage-room of the hotel, where the plaintiff purchased his). The price of these tickets was two dollars each. The reception committee was appointed by the fire company. At the door of the dancing-hall, the ball tickets were taken up, and supper tickets given in their stead, by a man employed by the company.

The plaintiff, on going to the ball, delivered his overcoat, fur collar and gloves, at the office of the hotel, to the son of the defendant, who was clerk, and also registered his name. During the night, he spent money for liquor and cigars at a saloon kept in connection with the hotel, the defendant being proprietor of both, and the articles being sold by his servants. The saloon was on the ground floor, had a front entrance from the street, and a door at the rear opening into the hall of the hotel, and separated from the office by a hall leading to the dining-room and the guests' washing-room. Plaintiff remained at the party (ball) till it broke up, about fixe or six o'clock in the morning. Upon calling for his coat, collar and gloves, the defendant and his son looked for them, and they were not to be found.

Upon these facts, was the defendant liable as inn-keeper at common law? This is the only question in the case.

The common law liability of an inn-keeper, for the loss of the goods...