Goodwin v. Georgian Hotel Co.

Decision Date01 December 1938
Docket Number27230.
Citation84 P.2d 681,197 Wash. 173
PartiesGOODWIN v. GEORGIAN HOTEL CO.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Department 2.

Action by Harry Goodwin against the Georgian Hotel Company to recover the amount of a cash deposit left by plaintiff with the hotel for safekeeping. Judgment for plaintiff $882.35 and both parties appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Robert M. Jones, judge.

Wright & Wright, of Seattle, for appellant.

Stern Orton & Stern and Kenneth S. Treadwell, all of Seattle, for respondent.

STEINERT, Chief Justice.

Suit was brought against an hotel company by one of its guests to recover the amount of a cash deposit left by him with the hotel for safekeeping. Trial by the court, aided by a jury which functioned merely in an advisory capacity, resulted in findings and conclusions upon which judgment for plaintiff was entered, but in an amount less than the original deposit. Both parties have appealed. Defendant hotel company, which took the main appeal, will hereinafter be referred to as appellant; plaintiff, who took a cross-appeal, will be referred to as respondent.

Appellant a corporation, operated the Georgian Hotel Company in Seattle. The hotel office, located in the rear portion of the main lobby, was about 8 feet long and 3 feet wide. The registration desk, or counter, which was 18 inches in width, formed a partial partition between the office and the lobby, the space above the registration desk being open and unobstructed. A door at one side of the office furnished entrance to and from the lobby. Inside the office appellant kept an iron safe which was used exclusively as a depository for the valuables of its guests. The safe had a heavy outer door, secured by a combination lock, and a lighter door inside which locked with a key; the key, however, was usually left in the lock. The combination was known only to appellant's manager and its two day clerks. The safe was for the most part kept locked at night.

Printed notices stating the facts that a safe of vault was provided by appellant for the safekeeping of valuables, and that the liability of the hotel was limited by law, were posted in three places on the hotel premises, one in the elevator, another in the parlor, or writing room, and a third on the wall in the rear of the office at a point immediately behind the registration desk and about 4 1/2 feet from its outer edge.

On or about November 2, 1936, respondent, who had been a quest of the hotel for several months, delivered to one of appellant's day clerks, for safekeeping, the sum of $1500. The deposit was made and accepted according to the system which appellant had adopted and was regularly following. Under this system, the clerk would supply the guest with an envelope in which the valuables were to be placed. On the back of the envelope was attached a slip of paper forming two identification checks, both bearing the same serial number, but separated from each other by a perforated line. The upper check was intended to be signed by the guest and the clerk receiving the deposit and to remain upon the envelope until redelivery of the deposit to the guest; the lower check was intended to be detached at the time that the deposit was made and retained by the guest until he reclaimed the deposit, at which time both the proper clerk and the guest were to sign it. Upon redelivery of the envelope to the guest, the clerk would put the surrendered check upon a spindle in the office, where it would remain for a brief period, until removed and destroyed by the proprietor or manager of the hotel.

On January 17, 1937, respondent tendered his check and claimed his deposit. The envelope could not be found, however, and it is conceded that the money was not at that time, nor at any time since then, returned to respondent.

Up to this point the facts are not in dispute.

Appellant, denying all liability, alleged in its answer and endeavored to prove at the trial that, during the latter part of November, 1936, respondent tendered his claim check and received the full contents of his envelope; that the surrendered check was then placed by the clerk on the spindle; and that thereafter respondent surreptitiously removed the check from the office and later tendered it again with intent to defraud appellant. The check, which was produced at the trial by respondent, appears as an exhibit in the case and gives evidence of having been torn from a spindle; it does not, however, bear respondent's signature, as required by the system then in vogue.

Appellant further contended, by evidence and argument, that, under the applicable statute, its liability was, in any event, limited to $1,000.

At the conclusion of the evidence, it was stipulated between the parties that the court should submit to the jury the single question whether respondent had ever received his money from appellant. In response to an interrogatory on the subject, the jury returned a negative answer. The court adopted the jury's special answer and made it a part of its own findings, from which the court concluded that appellant was liable, but that its liability was limited to $1,000. After deducting the amount of an accrued hotel bill of $117.65 owing by respondent, which is conceded to be correct, the court entered judgment for respondent in the sum of $882.35.

Upon its appeal, appellant contends that the court should have absolved it of all liability and should have given it judgment against respondent for the amount of the accrued hotel bill. Upon his cross-appeal, respondent contends that he should have been given judgment for $1500, the total amount of his deposit, less his accrued bill.

The decision of the various questions presented to us depends largely upon the construction to be given to the several provisions of Section 1, Chapter 114, Laws of 1933, page 434, entitled, 'An Act to protect hotel keepers,' etc., now appearing as Rem.Rev.Stat. (1938 Sup.), § 6862, which reads as follows:

'Whenever the proprietor, keeper, owner, operator, lessee, or manager of any hotel, lodging-house or inn shall provide a safe or vault for the safekeeping of any money, bank notes, jewelry, precious stones, ornaments, railroad mileage books or tickets, negotiable securities or other valuable papers, bullion, or other valuable property of small compass belonging to the guests, boarders or lodgers of such hotel, lodging-house or inn, and shall notify the guests, boarders or lodgers thereof by posting a notice in three or more public and conspicuous places in the office, elevators, public rooms, elevator lobbies, public corridors, halls or entrances, or in the public parlors of such hotel, lodging-house or inn, stating the fact that such safe or vault is provided in which such property may be deposited; and if such guests, boarders or lodgers shall neglect to deliver such property to the person in charge of such office, for deposit in the safe or vault, the proprietor, keeper, owner, operator, lessee or manager, whether individual, partnership or corporation, of such hotel, lodging-house or inn shall not be liable for any loss or destruction of any such property, or any damage thereto, sustained by such guests, boarders or lodgers, by negligence of such proprietor, keeper, owner, operator, lessee or manager, or his, her, their or its employees, or by fire, theft, burglary, or any other cause whatsoever; but no proprietor, keeper, owner, operator, lessee or manager of any hotel, lodging-house or inn, shall be obliged to receive property on deposit for safekeeping exceeding one thousand dollars in value; and if such guests, boarders or lodgers shall deliver such property to the person in charge of said office for deposit in such safe or vault, said proprietor, keeper, owner, operator, lessee, or manager, shall not be liable for the loss or destruction thereof, or damage thereto, sustained by such guests, boarders or lodgers in any such hotel, lodging-house, or inn, exceeding the sum of one thousand dollars, notwithstanding said property may be of greater value, unless by special arrangement in writing with such proprietor, keeper, owner, operator, lessee or manager; Provided, however, That in case of such deposit of such property, the proprietor, keeper, owner operator, lessee or manager of such hotel, lodging-house, or inn, shall in no event be liable for loss or destruction thereof, or damage thereto, unless caused by the theft or gross negligence of such proprietor, keeper, owner, operator, lessee, or manager, or his, her, their, or its agents, servants or employees.'

It is settled law in this state that an innkeeper cannot exempt himself from his common law liability as an insurer of the property of his guest unless he complies strictly with the statute enacted for his protection. Watt v. Kilbury, 53 Wash. 446, 102 P. 403; Gillett v. Waldorf Hotel Co., 136 Wash. 615, 241 P. 14; Featherstone v. Dessert, 173 Wash. 264, 22 P.2d 1050. See, also, Beale on Innkeepers and Hotels, §§ 413, 417.

The first question to be considered is presented by respondent's cross-appeal. That question is whether or not appellant proved a strict compliance with the statute.

Respondent impliedly concedes that the notices which were posted in the elevator and writing room or parlor, respectively, were sufficient, both as to place and content. He vigorously insists, however, that the notice placed on the wall of the office was not posted in a 'public and conspicuous' place, as required by the statute.

Respondent's argument is that the office was not a 'public place,' because guests were not allowed therein, and that, in any event, the notice was not conspicuously displayed.

The office was not wholly separate and apart from the lobby,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • January 7, 1977
    ... ... Brown, The Law of Personal Property 258 (3d ed. 1975); Accord, [559 P.2d 988] Goodwin v. Georgian Hotel Co., 197 Wash. 173, 181, 84 P.2d 681 ... Page 162 ... (1938) (bailee must ... ...
  • Chaloupka v. Cyr
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • December 19, 1963
    ...Garages, Inc., 59 Wash.2d 860, 371 P.2d 48 (1962); Jones v. Warner, supra; Ramsden v. Grimshaw, supra; Goodwin v. Georgian Hotel Co., 197 Wash. 173, 84 P.2d 681, 119 A.L.R. 788 (1938); Burley v. Hurley-Mason Co., supra; Russell v. Union Machinery & Supply Co., 88 Wash. 532, 153 P. 341 (1915......
  • Terry v. Lincscott Hotel Corp., 1
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • July 24, 1980
    ...Pfennig v. Roosevelt Hotel, 31 So.2d 31 (La.1947); Levesque v. Columbia Hotel, 141 Me. 393, 44 A.2d 728 (1945); Goodwin v. Georgian Hotel Co., 197 Wash. 173, 84 P.2d 681 (1938). We are guided in our analysis of the statute in question by the customary principles of statutory construction. S......
  • Bean v. Security Fur Storage Warehouse, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • July 3, 1962
    ...Dallas v. Milum, 200 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.Civ.App.). Wyatt v. Baughman, 121 Utah, 98, 102, 239 P.2d 193. Goodwin v. Georgian Hotel Co., 197 Wash. 173, 181, 84 P.2d 681, 119 A.L.R. 788. Prettyman v. Hopkins Motor Co., 139 W.Va. 711, 728-729, 81 S.E.2d 78. Afflerbaugh v. George Grede & Bro., ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT