Huckins Hotel Co. v. Hooper

• Decision Date: 27 October 1914
• Docket Number: Case Number: 3932
• Citation: 144 P. 177,44 Okla. 307,1914 OK 518
• Parties: HUCKINS HOTEL CO. v. HOOPER.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1914 OK 518

144 P. 177

44 Okla. 307

HUCKINS HOTEL CO. v. HOOPER.

Case Number: 3932

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: October 27, 1914

Syllabus

¶0 INNKEEPERS--Loss of Guest's Property--Burden of Proof. H., a traveling salesman, while a guest of defendant hotel, deposited with it for safe-keeping $ 390. It was not called for until about three or four weeks later. In the meantime he was a registered guest a part of the time, and part of the time he was away and not technically a guest. The money could not be found when demanded, and suit was brought for the amount deposited. Held, that the burden of proof was not on H. to show that he was a registered guest at the precise time the money was lost.

B. O. Young, for plaintiff in error.

David N. Taylor, for defendant in error.

BREWER, C.

¶1 Joseph O. Hooper brought this suit, as plaintiff below, against the Huckins Hotel Company, a corporation, as defendant, to recover $ 390, which he had deposited with the defendant for safe-keeping. A judgment for said sum was rendered on the verdict of a jury in his favor, from which the defendant appeals. The plaintiff in error, as a premise for the argument in its brief, says:

"We contend that there is only one proposition in this case, and that is: Was the plaintiff a guest at the time the package was lost? And this proposition naturally divides itself into two questions, namely: First, when was the package lost? And, second, was the plaintiff a guest at that time?"

¶2 Plaintiff's evidence, which is not contradicted, discloses that he is a traveling man, representing an Eastern firm, and that on March 11, 1911, he came to Oklahoma City and registered at the Lee-Huckins Hotel, and took therein his trunk; that he stayed over Sunday, and on Monday paid his bill and made arrangements to have a room reserved for him either Friday or Saturday of the same week, and for his trunk to remain at the hotel in its care, and directed that all mail that he might receive should come to the hotel. This arrangement continued, or rather was repeated weekly, from the time he first came to the hotel up to May 19th. He was actually in the hotel nine periods during the time mentioned, his trunk remaining there throughout the entire time; he either being an actual guest present in the hotel, or with a room reserved for the next Saturday, for which he was liable during the entire time mentioned. About the middle of April, on either the 14th or the 21st, while he was present and a guest, he went to the cashier's window and informed her that he had a larger amount of money than he ought to carry with him; that he wanted to leave same in the hotel vault or safe for safe-keeping. He counted the money and thought it was $ 370, pushed it through the wicket into the cashier, and she counted it and made it $ 390. Plaintiff then recounted the money and found it was $ 390, pushed it back to the cashier, and she took it, put it in a patent envelope, sealed it, and detached and gave to him a receipt for the same. About the 19th of May the plaintiff, being in the hotel and a registered guest, asked for his package of money and exhibited his receipt. The cashier took the receipt, went to the vault to get the package, but later returned and informed plaintiff that it could not be found. Later plaintiff made formal demand for the money, but it was never restored to him, and this suit resulted. The defendant admits that it received the money in the amount stated and gave a receipt as claimed, and that it has not restored the money, but defends on the theory that, at the time the money was lost, the relation of innkeeper and guest had been terminated between the parties, and that therefore it was not liable as an innkeeper. Section 1113, Rev. Laws 1910, is as follows:

"An innkeeper or keeper of a boarding-house is liable for all losses of, or injuries to, personal property placed by his guests or boarders under his care, unless occasioned by an irresistible superhuman cause, by a public enemy, by the negligence of the owner, or by the act of someone whom he brought into the inn or boarding-house; and upon such property the innkeeper or keeper of a boarding-house has a lien and a right of detention for the payment of such amount as may be due him for lodging, fare, boarding, or other necessaries by such guest or boarder; and the said lien may be enforced by a sale of the property in the manner prescribed for the sale of pledged property."

¶3 This statute practically makes the innkeeper an insurer of the property of his guests placed under his care, but certain exemptions from liability may be availed of by the innkeeper by complying with section 1114, Rev....