Fant v. Arlington Hotel Company
| Decision Date | 15 February 1926 |
| Docket Number | 169 |
| Citation | 280 S.W. 20,170 Ark. 440 |
| Parties | FANT v. ARLINGTON HOTEL COMPANY |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; Earl Witt, Judge; reversed.
Judgments reversed, and causes remanded.
Cockrill & Armistead and Murphy & Wood, for appellant.
Martin Wootton & Martin, for appellee.
The Arlington Hotel, owned and operated by a domestic corporation, was situated in the city of Hot Springs on a portion of the United States Hot Springs Reservation, which was ceded to the United States by the General Assembly of Arkansas by statute approved February 21, 1903. The statute ceded exclusive jurisdiction to the United States, with the following proviso: "That this grant of jurisdiction shall not prevent the execution of any process of the State civil or criminal, on any person who may be on such reservation or premises; provided further, that the right to tax all structures and other property in private ownership on the Hot Springs Reservation accorded the State by the act of Congress approved March 3, 1901, is hereby reserved to the State of Arkansas." Congress enacted a statute (33 Stat. L. 187), approved April 20, 1904, accepting jurisdiction, which, after describing the ceded area, and cession of jurisdiction, provides that the territory "shall be under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, and all laws applicable to places under such sole and exclusive jurisdiction shall have full force and effect therein; provided, that nothing in this act shall be so construed as to forbid the service within said boundaries of any civil or criminal process of any court having jurisdiction in the State of Arkansas; that all fugitives from justice taking refuge within said boundaries shall, on due application to the executive of said State, whose warrant may lawfully run within said territory for said purposes, be subject to the laws which apply to fugitives from justice found in the State of Arkansas; and provided further, that this act shall not be so construed as to interfere with the right to tax all structures and other property in private ownership within the boundaries above described."
The hotel building was destroyed by fire on April 5, 1923, and the appellants instituted separate actions in the circuit court of Garland County against the owner to recover compensation for loss of baggage which was destroyed in the fire. Liability is predicated upon facts which would bring the case within the common-law liability of inn-keepers.
There is a statute in this State, enacted by the General Assembly of 1913 (Crawford & Moses' Digest, § 5567), which restricts the liability of hotel keepers to loss or damage to property of guests, so that there is no liability under the circumstances of the present case. In other words, the complaint states the cause of action under the common law, but none under the statute of this State. The court sustained a demurrer to the complaints of the several appellants (the cases being consolidated here) presenting the question, first, whether or not the courts of this State have jurisdiction to enforce civil liability which accrued within territory over which exclusive jurisdiction has been ceded by the State to the United States Government; and second, whether or not a statute regulating civil liability, enacted after a cession of jurisdiction, is applicable to causes of action arising within that territory.
Our conclusion in regard to the first question is that the courts of this State are not deprived, by the State's cession to the general government of exclusive jurisdiction, of the right to exercise judicial power in the enforcement of rights of action in civil matters which accrue in the ceded territory. We are not dealing with a local action, such as one which concerns the title to real estate, and what we say now must, of course, be confined to the character of action involved in these appeals. These are transitory actions which may be enforced anywhere that jurisdiction can be acquired over the person...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Belt Line Railroad v. Parker
...on February 18, 1929. That case came in error from the Supreme Court of Arkansas, where it was twice heard, and is reported in 170 Ark. 440, 280 S.W. 20, and in 176 Ark. 613, 4 S.W.(2d) 7. Complainants charge that the hotel was located on a Federal reservation at Hot Springs, and that under......
-
Norfolk & P. B. L. R. Co v. Parker
...on February 18, 1929. That case came in error from the Supreme Court of Arkansas, where it was twice heard, and is reported in 170 Ark. 440, 280 S. W. 20, and in 176 Ark. 613, 4 S.W.(2d) 7. Complainants charge that the hotel was located on a federal reservation at Hot Springs, and that unde......
-
Hackney v. Southwest Hotels, Inc.
... ... Ark. 235] The appellee owns and operates the McGehee Hotel in ... Little Rock. The appellant was the plaintiff in the lower ... 787; New York Hotel Co. v ... Palmer, 158 Ark. 598, 251 S.W. 34; Fant v ... Arlington Hotel Co., 170 Ark. 440, 280 S.W. 20, ... second appeal ... ...
-
Williams v. Arlington Hotel Co.
...for loss of property, by a guest of the defendant's hotel, caused by the same fire which caused plaintiff's loss. Fant v. Arlington Hotel Co., 170 Ark. 440, 280 S. W. 20. In that case the court held that the act of 1913 did not apply. The opinion of the court on that point is very brief. Al......