Jackson v. Virginia Hot Springs Co.

• Decision Date: 04 February 1914
• Docket Number: 1213.
• Citation: 213 F. 969
• Parties: JACKSON v. VIRGINIA HOT SPRINGS CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

213 F. 969

JACKSON v. VIRGINIA HOT SPRINGS CO.

No. 1213.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

February 4, 1914

J. T Coleman, of Lynchburg, Va. (Coleman, Easley & Coleman, of Lynchburg, Va., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

George E. Caskie, of Lynchburg, Va. (Caskie & Caskie, of Lynchburg Va., John W. Stephenson, of Warm Springs, Va., and J. T McAllister, of Hot Springs, Va., on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before PRITCHARD, KNAPP, and WOODS, Circuit Judges.

PRITCHARD Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff,' instituted an action against the defendant in error, hereinafter referred to as 'defendant,' in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia, based upon the unlawful and wrongful refusal of the defendant to furnish plaintiff, his wife, and daughter with accommodation at defendant's inn, and oppressively turning them away from the inn in the nighttime; the plaintiff's wife, Ida G Jackson, being at the time an invalid. At the time of the institution of this suit Ida G. Jackson also instituted a similar action against the defendant; that case being No. 1212 (213 F. 975). A demurrer was filed to the original declaration in each case which was sustained with leave to amend; at that time plaintiff filed an amended declaration to which the defendant again demurred, the two demurrers being sustained the court gave final judgment for the defendant, and the two cases now come here on writ of error.

In passing upon the questions presented for our consideration in this case we will also consider those involved in the Ida G. Jackson case, inasmuch as the counts in each case are practically the same.

By the first count it is averred that the defendant was an innkeeper and kept a common inn for the accommodation of travelers, wayfarers, and guests; that the plaintiff, being a traveler and wayfarer, came to the defendant's inn on the 17th day of March, 1911, and lawfully requested and required the defendant to suffer and permit him to stay and lodge, for the customary consideration, at the said inn for and during the night of the said day; and that although the plaintiff was, as the defendant well knew, then and there ready and willing to pay the reasonable, customary, and adequate compensation for such lodging, yet the defendant did not, nor would, suffer or permit the plaintiff to stay or lodge at the said inn, but 'unlawfully, uncivilly, discourteously, and insultingly declined and refused to do so,' whereby the plaintiff was forced and obliged to quit the said inn and go and travel in the nighttime a considerable distance, to wit, a mile, in order to secure lodging elsewhere, and whereby also the plaintiff was put to great trouble, inconvenience, and expense, and was greatly mortified, humiliated, discomfited, and distressed, and otherwise injured.

In the second count the defendant's hostelry, is described as a house of private entertainment.

In the third count it is described as a hotel.

In the fourth count it is described as a house of entertainment at which the defendant customarily furnished for hire or compensation lodging and diet for travelers or sojourners.

And in the fifth count it is described as an ordinary.

The sixth count contains the averment that the defendant kept a certain inn or hotel known as 'The Homestead,' and was also the owner and proprietor of certain celebrated springs known as the 'Virginia Hot Springs,' to which said inn and springs the public generally, and especially invalids and infirm persons, were accustomed to resort for the purpose of obtaining the usual accommodations at the inn and partaking of the benefits of the curative and healing properties of the waters of the springs, the defendant having held out the said inn and the said springs to the public as a place of resort and sojournment for health, entertainment and pleasure, and having held itself out as ready, prepared, and willing to receive, accommodate, entertain, and care for, as guests of its said inn for hire, all such travelers and sojourners as might resort thereto for any of the purposes aforesaid, and especially invalids and infirm persons, to whom defendant recommended and held out the curative and healing properties of the waters of its springs as of great merit and efficiency; that the plaintiff's wife, being an invalid and infirm person, and having been attracted by the defendant's exploitation of its said inn and springs and the general reputation thereof, and having been thereby led to believe that the baths at the defendant's resort would be greatly beneficial to her, prevailed upon the plaintiff to secure lodgings and accommodations at the defendant's inn and to take and accompany her there, in order that, as a guest of the inn, she might conveniently avail herself of the benefits to be derived from the waters of the springs and the baths connected therewith; and that, on the 15th day of March, 1911, the plaintiff set out from Atlantic City, N.J., together with his wife, and also his daughter, and proceeded and traveled to the defendant's inn, arriving there on the 17th about 1 o'clock a.m., and entered the same, and then and there applied to, requested, and required of the said defendant that it furnish him, the said plaintiff, and his said wife and daughter, with lodgings and accommodations at the said inn, as guests thereof for hire, at the customary rates and charges; but that the defendant, although well knowing that the plaintiff was then and there ready and willing to pay the customary and adequate compensation for such lodgings and accommodations, as well for himself as for his wife and daughter, and well knowing that the plaintiff's wife was an invalid and an infirm person, and that the plaintiff and his wife and daughter had traveled a long distance for the purpose of becoming, in good faith, guests at the defendant's inn, nevertheless, in disregard of its duties and of the plaintiff's rights in the premises, then and there 'unlawfully, oppressively, discourteously, and insultingly' declined to allow or to permit them to remain at the said inn, and turned them away in the nighttime, and forced them to go and travel a distance of a mile, in cold and inclement weather, in order to procure lodgings and entertainment elsewhere; whereby ...