Morningstar v. Lafayette Hotel Co.

• Decision Date: 02 June 1914
• Parties: MORNINGSTAR v. LAFAYETTE HOTEL CO.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

211 N.Y. 465

105 N.E. 656

MORNINGSTAR

v.LAFAYETTE HOTEL CO.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 2, 1914.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Action by William Morningstar against the Lafayette Hotel Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (149 App. Div. 934,134 N. Y. Supp. 1139), affirming by a divided court a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

John T. Ryan, of Buffalo, for appellant.

Edward J. Garono, of Buffalo, for respondent.

CARDOZO, J.

[1][2] The plaintiff was a guest at the Lafayette Hotel in the city of Buffalo. He seems to have wearied of the hotel fare, and his yearning for variety has provoked this lawsuit. He went forth and purchased some spareribs, which he presented to the hotel chef with a request that they be cooked for him and brought to his room. This was done, but with the welcome viands there came the unwelcome addition of a bill or check for $1, which he was asked to sign. He refused to do so, claiming that the charge was excessive. That evening he dined at the café, and was again asked to sign for the extra service, and again declined. The following morning, Sunday, when he presented himself at the breakfast table, he was told that he would not be served. This announcement was made publicly, in the hearing of other guests. He remained at the hotel till Tuesday, taking his meals elsewhere, and he then left. The trial judge left it to the jury to say whether the charge was a reasonable one, instructing them that, if it was, the defendant had a right to refuse to serve the plaintiff further, and that, if it was not, the refusal was wrongful. In this, there was no error. An innkeeper is not required to entertain a guest who has refused to pay a lawful charge. Whether the charge in controversy was excessive was a question for the jury.

[3][4] The plaintiff says, however, that there was error in the admission of evidence which vitiates the verdict. In this we think that he is right. He alleged in his complaint that the defendant's conduct had injured his reputation. He offered no proof on that head, but the defendant took advantage of the averment to prove what the plaintiff's reputation was. A number of hotel proprietors were called as witnesses by the defendant, and under objection were allowed to prove that, in their respective hotels, the plaintiff's reputation was that of a chronic faultfinder. Some of them were permitted to say that the plaintiff was known as a ‘kicker.’ Others were permitted to say that his reputation was bad, not in respect of any moral qualities, but as the guest of a hotel. The trial judge charged the jury that they must find for the defendant if they concluded that the plaintiff had suffered no damage, and this evidence was received to show that he had suffered none. It is impossible to justify the ruling. The plaintiff, if wrongfully ejected from the café, was entitled to recover damages for injury to his feelings as a result of the humiliation (Aaron v. Ward, 203 N. Y . 351, 96 N. E. 736,38 L. R....