Holstein v. Phillips & Sims
| Decision Date | 14 December 1907 |
| Citation | 59 S.E. 1037,146 N.C. 366 |
| Parties | HOLSTEIN et ux. v. PHILLIPS & SIMS. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Henderson County; Guion, Judge.
Action for loss of goods and jewelry at a hotel by J. D. Holstein and wife against Phillips & Sims. From a judgment for plaintiffs on an agreed statement of facts, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
A guest in a hotel, who holds the position of a regular boarder or lodger, can only hold the proprietor liable to the exercise of ordinary care on the part of himself and his employees as to the goods and money of the guest.
Civil action, tried on appeal from a justice's court, before his honor, Guion, J., at May term, 1907, of the superior court of Henderson county.
A jury trial having been formally waived, the facts were agreed upon, and it was made to appear: "That in 1905 the defendants were the proprietors of the Imperial Hotel, where they were running a general public hotel business during the summer as a summer resort, under the firm name of Phillips & Sims. While they were so engaged, the feme plaintiff stopped at said hotel under the facts, circumstances, and conditions as set out in her testimony and the testimony of her husband and it is agreed that the entire facts in controversy are as set out in the following depositions, which are admitted by the defendants to be true: 'That on or about the 9th day of August last, I was stopping at the Imperial Hotel, in the town of Hendersonville, N. C., in room No. 63. I had been previous to that time in room No. 106, but a few days before the robbery occurred I moved to room No. 63. On the evening of the 9th day of August, 1905, just before supper time, I put my purse in my hand satchel, the said purse containing $6 in money, being a $5 bill and a silver dollar. There was also in the purse New York Exchange for $30, payable to my order. There was nothing else in the purse of any value. After placing the purse in the hand satchel, I placed the hand satchel in the tray of my trunk in room No. 63 in the Imperial Hotel at Hendersonville, N.C. There was also a jewelry case in the tray of the trunk by the hand satchel then and there, and the jewelry case contained several valuable pieces of jewelry, and among others one diamond ring, consisting of a cluster of 13 diamonds arranged in the shape of a diamond. With these things in the trunk, I shut the trunk, locked it, then went out of the room No. 63, and locked the door to it, taking the room key and the trunk key which I had attached together on a key ring and chain, went downstairs, and went to the office of the hotel and delivered the said keys, ring, and chain to Mr. H. G. Lawrence, the night clerk then and there in charge of the office of the said hotel, who took charge of the keys. I then went into the dining room, ate supper, stayed in the dining room about one-half an hour, and went from there to the front porch, stayed out there until about 9 o'clock, then went to the office, called for my keys, which were delivered to me by the said Mr. H. G. Lawrence. I then went back to my room on a small errand, and came back downstairs, locking the door after me, and bringing the same keys, including the trunk and door keys, in my hand down into the ballroom, where I remained until about half past 10 o'clock, holding the keys in my hand all the time. I did not participate in the dancing, but remained in my seat as a spectator, and never for one moment parting with the possession of my keys, since receiving them from the clerk. After leaving the ballroom, I went back to my room about half past 10 o'clock to retire. I unlocked the door, which I found locked. I then undressed, after having taken the keys from out the door on the outside, and putting the door key in the lock on the inside of my room, locking the same. Just before retiring, I opened my trunk, which I found locked just as I had left it locked, in order to get the valuables to put under my pillow. I then discovered that my purse had been stolen from the trunk, containing the $6 and the New York Exchange. I then looked into the jewelry case, and found the said diamond ring above described had been stolen and taken away from said trunk and room. *** I never received any notice from any source, and saw no notice, for me to place my valuables in the safe or elsewhere for safe-keeping, until after the loss of my property, when Mr. Phillips informed me of the existence of such notice on the register, when I had informed him of his liability, which was some time after I had informed him of the loss."' On cross-examination, the witness said: "That, when she first reached the hotel, Mr. Phillips, one of the defendants, agreed to board her at $10 per week, and she was to stay two or three weeks; but that no agreement was made for any particular time, and after the robbery the witness moved to another place. That witness never deposited any money or valuables in the office of the hotel before the robbery, and was not aware of the fact that it was her duty to do so, and witness never saw any card in the room or elsewhere, giving notice that this was required, and never said so to defendants, or any other persons. It was not shown that any copy of the statute regulating the liability of innkeepers was posted in the plaintiff's room, or elsewhere in the hotel. Revisal 1905, c. 42. There was an agreement to the effect that, in case defendants were liable for plaintiff's loss, judgment should be entered for $141, with interest from September 15, 1905. On the facts stated, the court, being of opinion with plaintiffs, rendered judgment for the amount agreed upon, and defendant excepted and appealed.
Chas. French Toms, for appellants.
Smith & Schenck, for appellees.
The decisions of this state are to the effect that, in the absence of statutory regulation, the keeper of a public inn, or hotel, which is the modern and more frequently used term, is responsible to his guest for the safety of the latter's goods, chattels, and money, when placed infra hospitium, and which he has with him for the purposes of his journey. The proprietor is held to be an insurer to the extent that he must make good to the guest all loss or damage arising from any cause, except the act of God or the public enemy, or the fault of the guest himself, or his agents or servants. Quinton v. Courtney, 2 N. C. 40; Neal v. Wilcox, 49 N.C. 146, 67 Am. Dec. 266. This exacting requirement of the common law, established in a ruder time from reasons of public policy, in many instances and under modern conditions, may operate with great harshness, and the matter has been very generally made the subject of legislation, by which the landlord's obligations have been limited, both in kind and amount. It is so with us. Revisal 1905, c. 42, § 1909 et seq. The statute, however (section 1913), itself provides as follows: This provision not having been complied with by defendant, the principle of the common law obtains, and if, on the facts agreed, the relation between these parties was that of guest and proprietors of a public inn or hotel, defendants are responsible for the loss of the goods.
The counsel for defendants, in his learned argument, contended That the...
To continue reading
Request your trial