Martell v. St. Francis Hotel Co.

• Decision Date: 05 January 1909
• Citation: 51 Wash. 375,98 P. 1116
• Parties: MARTELL et al. v. ST. FRANCIS HOTEL CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

98 P. 1116

51 Wash. 375

MARTELL et al. v. ST. FRANCIS HOTEL CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 5, 1909

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; R. B. Albertson, Judge.

Action by Martell and another against the St. Francis Hotel Company. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal. Reversed with directions for decree.

Buck &amp Boddy, for appellants.

G. E Steiner, for respondent.

MOUNT J.

This action was brought to restrain the respondent from using the name 'St. Francis' for its hotel, and for damages. The cause was tried to the court without a jury. Before the trial it appeared that the appellants had purchased the interest of the original plaintiffs, and the appellants were therefore substituted as plaintiffs. At the trial the substituted plaintiffs waived all damages prior to their purchase. Thereafter the evidence was all submitted, and the court made findings of fact and dismissed the action. The plaintiffs appeal.

The facts as found by the trial court are as follows:

'(1) That on or about the 20th day of May, 1907, the plaintiffs herein purchased from F. A. Lane the lease, furniture, furnishings, and good will complete of the Hotel St. Francis, situated at No. 816, Union street, Seattle, and ever since have been and now are conducting said Hotel St. Francis. That said F. A. Lane purchased said Hotel St. Francis complete from his predecessors on or about the 11th day of July, 1906, and continued to run said hotel from the time he purchased the same until he sold it to the plaintiffs herein. That the predecessors of F. A. Lane established said Hotel St. Francis on or about one year prior to its purchase by said Lane. That said Hotel St. Francis is a wooden structure of 48 rooms, having in connection therewith a dining room. That the patronage of the plaintiffs' hotel is principally such as secure accommodations by the week or month, or for longer periods, and is such a hostelry as is commonly known as a rooming house or boarding house, and does not make a specialty of transient trade. That the lowest price charged for rooms at plaintiffs' hotel is $3.50 per week.

'(2) That the defendant is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Washington.

'(3) That on or about the 1st day of January, 1907, one H. E. Kennedy and a partner, one Stuart Johnson, established a hotel on the corner of 9th avenue and Madison street, in the city of Seattle, and selected for the name of said hotel the name 'St. Francis.' That about the same time said Kennedy and Johnson filed articles of incorporation of the St. Francis Hotel Company, which incorporation was formed for the purpose of taking over said hotel.

'(4) That on or about the 1st day of February, 1907, one W. F. Kennedy purchased the interest of said Johnson in said hotel property and said corporation. That said H. E. Kennedy and said W. F. Kennedy thereafter subscribed for the entire capital stock of the St. Francis Hotel Company, and conveyed to said corporation the said St. Francis hotel.

'(5) That the defendant corporation has ever since been conducting said hotel under the name of St. Francis. That at the time of forming said corporation and establishing said hotel, and for two or three months after said hotel was in operation, neither said H. F. Kennedy nor his partner nor any one connected with said hotel or corporation had ever heard of the plaintiffs' hotel St. Francis, or of any other hotel of the same name in the city of Seattle. That the defendant's hotel is located in a building of brick and cement construction of 178 rooms, having commodious dining room attachment, private baths, telephone exchange, billiard room, and barber shop, and is in every respect equipped and operated as a modern transient hotel, in the equipment of which defendants have expended $45,000. That the prices charged for accommodations at the defendant's hotel are from $2.50 to $4.50 per day. That in forming said corporation and establishing said hotel the defendant corporation and the individuals forming said corporation were guilty of no fraud whatever toward the plaintiffs, never having heard of plaintiffs' hotel, nor did they nor have they at any time or in any manner attempted to attract to themselves the plaintiffs' patronage or good name, or to advertise their hotel as the plaintiffs' hotel, or to mislead the public into the belief that their hotel was the plaintiffs' hotel.

'(6) That soon after the establishment of the defendant's hotel the plaintiffs' predecessors began to receive many telephone calls intended for the defendant's hotel. That the plaintiffs continued to be and are yet the recipient of many telephone calls daily intended for the defendant's hotel. That during said Lane's ownership of the plaintiffs' hotel a consignment of groceries intended for the defendant's hotel were delivered to the plaintiffs' hotel and afterwards forwarded to defendant's hotel. That two or three times per week trunks intended for the defendant's hotel were delivered to the plaintiffs' hotel. That upon one occasion a call for a doctor for a guest at plaintiffs' hotel became confused, and the doctor was delayed about two hours in answering said call. That in order for the plaintiffs to secure prompt delivery of supplies, baggage, etc., at the hotel, or to secure prompt response to calls to the hotel, and to prevent confusion, it is necessary for the plaintiffs to add to the name of the hotel in orders for supplies, calls, etc., the street number of plaintiffs' hotel. That by adding such street number to orders, calls, etc., all confusion was avoided. That plaintiffs had knowledge of the said confusion and inconvenience and of the pendency of this action at the time they purchased said hotel.'

The trial court seems to have been impressed with the fact that at the time respondent named its hotel 'St. Francis' it was not aware of the existence of appellants' hotel St. Francis, and with the fact that that the two hotels were of...