Hall v. Galloway

• Decision Date: 10 October 1913
• Citation: 135 P. 478,76 Wash. 42
• Parties: HALL et ux. v. GALLOWAY et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

135 P. 478

76 Wash. 42

HALL et ux. v. GALLOWAY et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 10, 1913

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; E. B. Preble Judge.

Action by O. A. Hall and wife against Miller R. Galloway and another. Judgment for the defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Holden & Shumate, of North Yakima, for appellants.

Lee C Delle and H. J. Snively, both of North Yakima, for respondents.

ELLIS J.

This is an action for damages brought by the plaintiffs, O. A. Hall and Lavaunt E. Hall, husband and wife, against the defendants. The complaint sets forth, in substance, that the plaintiffs are husband and wife; that for more than three years last past the plaintiffs have been owners and proprietors of the Hotel Wapato, in Wapato, Wash.; that the Hotel Wapato at all times therein mentioned was and is a public house for the entertainment of travelers; that the plaintiffs were compelled to receive all travelers who properly apply for admission so long as there was room for them; that the plaintiffs conducted their house in an orderly manner and that they and their hotel bore a good reputation in the community; that about 9 o'clock p. m. on July 13, 1911, defendant Bannerman entered the hotel, placed upon the register the names of J. E. Henderson and wife and George H. Holmes and wife and asked for rooms, which were furnished to them; that the defendants and two females, unknown to the plaintiffs, entered the rooms, remained there for about two hours until expelled by the plaintiffs; that the defendants falsely represented themselves to be husbands of the females in question for the purpose of gaining admittance to the hotel and were unknown to the plaintiffs; that, soon after gaining admission to the hotel, the defendants and their consorts indulged in such lewd and disorderly conduct that the plaintiffs forcibly ejected them, the other guests being disturbed thereby; that by reason of this episode many guests of the hotel were led to believe it a place of ill repute and that the plaintiffs were brought into public scorn and disgrace, whereby the patronage of their hotel was decreased, and as a consequence plaintiffs and each of them claimed to have been damaged in the sum of $5,000. Upon a motion to strike certain parts of the complaint, a motion to separate the causes of action, and a motion to make more definite and certain, the court ordered the plaintiffs to separately state the causes of action for the defamation of Mrs. Hall and Mr. Hall, respectively, arising from the defendants' conduct per se and the cause of action arising to the plaintiffs jointly from defendants' conduct, coupled with the alleged special damages from a loss of customers of the hotel. The court also ordered stricken paragraph 4 of the complaint reading as follows:

'That the plaintiffs, as proprietors of said hotel, were and are compelled to receive all travelers who properly apply to be admitted so long as plaintiffs had room for the accommodation of such travelers in said hotel.'

The court also ordered stricken the following portion of paragraph 6:

'That on the 13th day of July, 1911, the defendant, John B. Bannerman, acting in his own behalf and for the defendant Miller R. Galloway, at about the hour of 9 o'clock p. m. entered the office of said hotel and placed upon the register, commonly kept and used in said hotel for the names of the guests thereof, the hour of their arrival, and accommodations furnished, the names of J. E. Henderson and wife and George H. Holmes and wife, and requested the plaintiff O. A. Hall, who was then in charge of said office in behalf of said plaintiffs, to furnish to the defendants and their wives, as they represented, sleeping rooms in said hotel for the coming night.'

This on the ground that it sets forth only evidence and not issuable facts. On the same ground paragraphs 7, 8, and 9, reading as follows, were stricken:

'That the defendants immediately thereafter, in company with said females, entered said sleeping rooms and remained there for the space of about two hours when they, each and all of them, were expelled from said rooms and said hotel by the plaintiffs.'

'That the defendants falsely and purposely represented themselves as husbands, respectively, of said females, when in truth and in fact they were unmarried, for the purpose of gaining admittance to said hotel and receiving accommodations therein for lewd, lascivious, and licentious purposes, and so registered under said assumed, false, and fictitious names for the purpose of hiding their identity and deceiving the plaintiffs, for the purpose hereinbefore mentioned.'

'That, at the time said defendants and their said consorts were admitted to said hotel and said accommodations furnished, the true names and identity of said defendants were unknown to either of the plaintiffs, and, by reason of the said deceit practiced by the defendants upon the plaintiff O. A. Hall, the plaintiffs were deceived, led to believe, and did believe that the defendants and their said consorts were, each respectively, lawful husbands and wives and proper and suitable persons to receive admittance to said hotel and such accommodations thereat as hereinbefore stated.'

The allegation in paragraph 10 that the plaintiffs forcibly ejected the defendants was stricken, but the remainder of that paragraph stood. The court also ordered on motion to make more specific, that the plaintiffs set out the names of the guests and the names of others who were led to believe the house one of ill repute and also the amount of damages actually sustained by reason thereof. The court based this order on the ground that the alleged misconduct was not actionable per se, and that in order to be actionable it must result in actual loss to the plaintiffs, and that the rule in slander cases denying damages for repetitions of the slander apply here, and that the guests at that time must be the ones who withdraw their patronage to the extent of causing loss, and that their names must be set forth. Attempting compliance with these orders, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, which was ordered stricken for the reason that it did not set forth the names of the guests and others whose patronage was lost by reason of the alleged actions of the defendants. Thereupon the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, to which a demurrer was sustained on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and that several causes of action were improperly united. This complaint alleged, in substance, that the plaintiffs are husband and wife and owners and proprietors of the Hotel Wapato, which is their residence; that the hotel was a place of public entertainment conducted by the plaintiffs in a decent and orderly manner, whereby the plaintiffs bore a good reputation in the community; that on July 13th 'the defendants, accompanied by two female persons, not the wives of the said defendants or either of them, and with intent to use said hotel for immoral, lewd, and lascivious purposes and as a house of assignation, secured sleeping rooms in said...