Miles v. Int'l Hotel Co.

• Decision Date: 27 October 1919
• Docket Number: No. 12368.,12368.
• Citation: 289 Ill. 320,124 N.E. 599
• Parties: MILES v. INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

289 Ill. 320

124 N.E. 599

MILES

v.INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CO.

No. 12368.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 27, 1919.

Error to Second Branch Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Clinton F. Irwin, Judge.

Action by Nannie Miles against the International Hotel Company. Judgment for plaintiff was reversed by the Appellate Court (211 Ill. App. 323), and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.Thomas D. Nash and Michael J. Ahern, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

A. G. Dicus, of Chicago, for defendant in error.

THOMPSON, J.

This cause is brought to this court by certiorari to review a judgment of the Appellate Court for the First District reversing a judgment of the superior court for $1,097 in favor of Nannie Miles and against the International Hotel Company, proprietor of the Kaiserhof Hotel, in the city of Chicago. The judgment is for the value of a trunk and its contents claimed by plaintiff in error to have been lost by defendant in error.

According to the testimony of the plaintiff in error she came to the Kaiserhof Hotel on November 30, 1904, and registered as a guest of the hotel. She asked for special terms and was assigned room 301 at $1 a day. She brought with her a trunk, suitcase and a parrot in a cage, and stayed 6 months. When she went away, May 29, 1905, she called a bell boy and requested him to ascertain if she could leave her trunk and what the charges would be. He inquired of the clerk, and reported to her that they would gladly take care of her trunk and that there would be no charges. She first spoke to Miss Burke, the housekeeper, about leaving her trunk, and Miss Burke told her to make arrangements with the head porter. She had no conversation with the porter until her return, in March, 1906. Upon her return she registered and asked to have her trunk sent up. The next day she inquired of the porter why the trunk had not been sent up, and he said that it was Saturday, and therefore a very busy day, but he assured her that he would send it up. On Monday she inquired about her trunk, and the head porter told her that in making some alterations in the building he thought perhaps her trunk had been misplaced. On Tuesday she complained to Max Teich, one of the managers, regarding her trunk, and he asked her if she had a check for it, and she replied that she had not, because she left hurriedly and did not ask for a check. Teich went over the building with her, searching for the trunk. There was a trunk standing outside the linen room which trunk resembled hers, but it belonged to the assistant housekeeper. She further testified that Teich told her that Miss Nelson, the cashier, remembered that she had put the duplicate check in an envelope, sealed it, and put it in the safe, and had given the porter the corresponding check; that Teich held a check in his hand while he was telling her this, but he did not let her see it; that Teich told her that Miss Burke told him that Mr. Clark took the trunk from her room. The parrot cage was found in the baggage room. She described the trunk as one with an oval top, covered with imitation leather, and as being 3 1/2 feet long, and 3 feet high in the middle and 2 1/2 feet wide, and of the value of $14. She further testified that this trunk contained the following articles, and fixed the values set opposite each article: Black silk waist, $10; white silk waist, $5; waist pattern, $4; silk lace waist, $18; blue silk waist, $13.60; two tailor-made dress skirts, $25; broadcloth wrap, $32; silk and wool shawl, $28; three-piece tailored suit, $39.50; two silk crepe shawls, $24; sealskin coat, $380; black silk tea gown, $27; wool tea gown, $17; twelve yards clay suiting, $42; fifty yards black silk, $125; nine yards blue silk $40.50; eighteen yards brown silk taffeta, $18; three bolts white silk lace, $36; six yards black lace, $6; two bolts linen lace, $6; six yards Axminster trimming, $7.50; one dozen jade ornaments, $7.20; three yards black silk velvet, $15; three bolts black grosgrain ribbon, $14.40; twelve yards lawn, $4.80; two tablecloths, $7; two dozen napkins, $4.50; bedspread, $6; violin bow, $4; piece of fancy work, $37; two brushes, $2; silk table scarf, $12; pair of steel glasses, $12; shoes, $4; slippers, $3; silk petticoat, $12; silk velvet hat, $12; eighteen buttons, $18; tortoise shell purse, $7.50; sword, $5; hair switch, $7.

The sealskin coat was bought by her husband in 1879, and was 24 years old when she left it at the Kaiserhof Hotel. She fixed the above value because at one time a furrier told her it was worth $300 and she paid him $80 to remodel it, and it was therefore worth $380. The clay suiting was procured by her from her husband's store when he closed out his tailoring business. It was 6 or 8 years old at the time she left it in the trunk. She fixed the market value of this suiting at $42, because she saw the ticket on the goods. The fifty yards of black silk, the twelve yards of silk lace, the eleven bolts of linen net lace, the bolt of insertion, the three bolts of ribbon, and the silk hatbrush were all given to her when her husband closed out his dry goods store, in 1884. The violin bow was fifteen years old. The trunk was 12 years old. She further testified that she paid the bookkeeper at the office about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, but did not tell her about leaving the trunk, because she was not sure that she was going that day. She had formerly conducted the Oneida Hotel, at Indianapolis, Ind., and was familiar with the rules and regulations of hotels. She had been in a good many hotels and had left trunks, but had never before left a trunk at a hotel without getting a check for it. She talked to no one about going away, except the bell boy. She left at 7 o'clock p. m. There was a card hanging on the door of her room which stated that--

‘All baggage and property of guests left with us in storage will receive our best attention, for which no charge will be made, but in case of accident by fire or water or damage of any kind it will be at the risk of the owner.’

On behalf of the defendant in error Anna Burke testified that she had been the housekeeper for 23 years; that she knew the plaintiff in error, and saw a parrot cage with a bird in it in her room, and also and old trunk; that the plaintiff in error wore a wrapper about the hotel, and when she went out she wore a waist and skirt; that her trunk was invariably open, but that she never saw any silks or broadcloth or lace or bolts of goods in or around her trunk; that she saw her sealskin coat when she left it in the parlor and a watchman was taking it to the linen room; that it was worn on the sleeves and on the collar, where the neck rubs against it, and was faded.

William Licht testified that he was the clerk who received Mrs. Miles and saw her make arrangements with Teich for a weekly rate; that Mrs. Miles paid him when she left, after 6 o'clock on the evening of May 29, 1905, and that she said nothing to him about her trunk; that the first he heard of the trunk was about a year later; that defendant in error had checks which were issued when baggage was left in charge of the hotel; that one check was fastened to the trunk and one check was given to the guest; that the baggage room was in the basement and was in charge of the head porter; that there had never been any complaints of loss of trunks or baggage; that all the porters and watchmen were reliable, capable employés, and that there had never been complaint of their work or of anything lost when intrusted to their care.

Miss Mary Burke, who had charge of the linen room, testified that she never saw Mrs. Miles wear any silks or satins, but that she wore a dark skirt and white waist; that she often saw the sealskin coat hanging on the back of a chair in her room, and that it was a very old coat; that she never saw any bolts of silk or dress goods in her room; that her trunk was a zinc trunk with an oval top, and that it was invariably open; that when Mrs. Miles was looking for her trunk with Teich she pointed out the trunk of the witness, and said that it looked like hers, but that the trunk of the witness was somewhat larger than that of plaintiff in error.

Augustina...